Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Buy Vista or Else

Posted by Zonk on from the make-you-an-offer dept.

theodp writes "Upgrade or keep crashing was the tagline when Windows XP was introduced. So how will Windows Vista be marketed? 'I'd hate to see something bad happen to your PC,' seems to be one pitch. Even if new features won't get you to upgrade to Vista, you should buy Vista for the security, urged Windows Chief Jim Allchin. Are commercials featuring Tony Soprano next? Bada Bing!"

539 comments

  1. Security by Fusen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who's to say Vista will be secure? Surely from past experience its safer to use XP which has had numerous security patches then a whole new OS with thousands of vulnerabilities to be found

    1. Re:Security by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And beyond that it's probably safer to use something like OpenBSD instead of XP. It not only has a far more stable and secure base, but it also has far stricter security-wise development policies, and apparently more thorough code audits.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:Security by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would say if the codebase is entirely new, the chances of making the same mistakes again would be lower.
      What worries me more about rebuilding any codebase is the possibility of introducing whole new categories of bugs.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Security by LeonGeeste · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What? Windows has historically been secure. Last year's Windows security budget at Microsoft was over $40 million. When you think about all the people who use Windows, it's amazing what its resilience is. If you don't open suspicious email attachments, have a firewall, and scan for viruses, you'll be fine.

      The only reason hackers haven't done to Linux what they've done to Windows is because there are far fewer people using it, and the ones that do have extra security measures up. But make no mistake: once Linux cracks, say, 10%, they will find a jagged shard of glass in the Linux kernel and they will fuck you with it. I guarantee it.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    4. Re:Security by bender647 · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA describes many ways in which Vista will be more secure by design than the security-patched XP. For example, more attention to user privileges, sandboxing IE, a firewall that looks at outgoing traffic, integrated spyware checking.

      I could pretty much care less about Vista until the games I want to play won't run on anything else, but you can't doubt that M$ will be paying more attention to security in the fundamental design of Vista than they did in XP.

    5. Re:Security by jcr · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you want security and you must run windows apps, the only way to achieve it is to run windows under VMWare or Virtual PC on Linux, BSD, or Mac OS X.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Security by koreaman · · Score: 1

      I don't really follow you. Linux is used all the time in the server market, and a hacker probably cares more about high-profile servers than some random home user. So, why will having a bunch of random home users change anything?

      --
      Le français vous intéresse?
    7. Re:Security by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who's to say Vista will be secure?

      Well, I assume it'll be more secure against you. It is pure doublespeak because it has nothing to do with user security and everything to do with content security. But I assume they'll try to market it as "security", because everyone wants security right?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Security by joNDoty · · Score: 1

      That's a great point, parent. Security is a worse pitch than reliability because security can only be proven post-release. XP is pretty damn reliable IMHO. So all MS can tout is new features... and finally, a convincing reason for the common man to purchase really expensive hardware!

    9. Re:Security by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Well, servers are hard to hack regardless. Who tries to get ads to display in a server's GUI? You know?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    10. Re:Security by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Server admins usually don't execute the files attached to the random mails they receive from unknown sources on the servers.

      In fact, server admins (or knowledgeable IT guys un general) don't execute the files attached to the mail they receive unless they need to execute them, and it comes from a trusted source, and the AV didn't find anything when scanning the file.

      And the truly paranoids execute said files in virtual instances (e.g. a junk VMWare session that'll be trashed immediately after that)

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    11. Re:Security by masklinn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you could extend that to "if you want security you must never run any executable file that didn't come with your OS outside of a VM sandbox".

      Anything that can be executed is a security threat. Random executables received from mails with "3bl4rg3 yu0r p3n1s" more than others, but few softwares actually have a bug/issue count of 0.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    12. Re:Security by !equal · · Score: 1
      And the truly paranoids execute said files in virtual instances (e.g. a junk VMWare session that'll be trashed immediately after that)

      That is assuming that VMWare doesn't have any security issues to worry about. Wouldn't the "truly paranoid" execute the said files on a separate machine that isn't connected to anything and then completely wipe the machine and reimage it from a known good image when they are done?

    13. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it only takes 4 days to get your video capture card working, that is, if you can manage it at all!

      No thanks. I'll trade a little bit of security for a computer I can actually *use to do things with.*

      --
      Comment of the year
    14. Re:Security by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we know the codebase is NOT new... because the first security update for the beta was for the .wmf vulnerability... who knows what other nightmares are still ticking away in it.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    15. Re:Security by The+Ilia · · Score: 0

      ...and then they destroy the machine with a sledgehammer, just to make sure.

      --
      All of the brightest boys, To play with the biggest toys - More than they bargained for...
    16. Re:Security by The+NPS · · Score: 1

      Windows has not historically been secure. Just because an experienced user can keep it clean doesn't mean that it's secure.

    17. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also because Linux, the OS and the culture (this is important), is built with security in mind. Furthermore, Linux isn't a homogenous OS. There is no default install, or a new version released every few years (or a small number of patches in between). For any given Linux install, certain components such as glibc, zlib, the kernel, X.org, etc. may be at different versions, with different patchsets depending on the distribution. How can you easily write a virus that can spread as rapidly in the heterogeneous Linux world as it does/would in the homogeneous Windows world?

    18. Re:Security by Kuciwalker · · Score: 0

      Aside from the fact that there are programs that run on Windows that don't on OpenBSD...

    19. Re:Security by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That was exactly my reasoning for staying with Windows 2000 while Windows XP was being introduced. When I saw that I was right, and how bad XP really was, I decided to just move to Linux and have been happy ever since.

      Previously my attempts to move to Linux had been unsuccessful because I had problems getting certain hardware working (video capture, RAID) and was concerned about what software would be available (certain emulators I had grown fond of, video codecs, VirtualDub and other transcoding software), but even Windows 2000 was giving me some problems, such as booting into a blue screen telling me my registry had become corrupt, and also actually getting infected by viruses such as Blaster.

      I had everything up to date, all patched up, antivirus installed, etc, but still contracted the virus. A few reinstalls later and I just figured it wasn't worth it putting up with all the headaches.

      When I started running Linux, I quickly saw the advantages... Installing software didn't require the usual "Next, Next, uncheck every checkbox, delete desktop and quicklaunch icons, uninstall additional software installed along with the software I actually wanted, check for hidden startup items, make sure program doesn't phone home", when I started my PC I wasn't greeted by millions of splash screens, applications that couldn't make a connection popping up and letting me know, I didn't have to readjust settings that kept resetting for some reason (volume levels, icon positions on the quicklaunch)... GNU/Linux is about using your PC and not just working around problems to get what you want... and then I realized that upon discovering all this I didn't even have to worry about viruses at all, and I had no problems with crashes at all! Even if programs didn't behave in a way I expected I found it simple to find solutions, the error messages meant something and I could see exceptions thrown if I launched an application from a terminal, etc...

      --
      Twinstiq, game news
    20. Re:Security by imunfair · · Score: 0

      Doesn't take long to get your graphics card set up on OSX - and what is that based on?

      /Cue secondary whining about how there aren't many games for Macs.

    21. Re:Security by zootm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's based on BSD, yes. So's OpenBSD. Vista and XP, similarly, are based on the same thing. The basis is not the point here.

    22. Re:Security by Transmogrify_UK · · Score: 1

      But there aren't many games for Macs.

      I've actually just replaced my desktop PC with a 12" Mac Powerbook. Love it. Few driver issues but nothing I can't get by without. What's more concerning is the number of websites which refuse entry to Macs saying the site requires Windows 98/2000/XP.

      Err.. why?

    23. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "And beyond that it's probably safer to use something like OpenBSD instead of XP."

      I mean, seriously, just who is your post directed too? I can tell my clients: Use Firefox instead of IE, I sometimes tell them use OSX instead of XP. I even see situations where I might suggest Linux over XP or OSX.

      But for the life of me, I don't ever ever see a situation where I go: " Yeah!, use BSD - it's a viable alternative to XP or OSX".

    24. Re:Security by Kuciwalker · · Score: 0

      The .wmf vulnerability was part of the specs that they implemented - it wasn't a bug. So it should exist whether or not they reused code.

    25. Re:Security by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Even more paranoid: I delete any mails with atachments or executables right out of hand, regardless of the purported sender or IP addy.

      --
      C|N>K
    26. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      What websites? I've been using Macs for a decade and I've never come across any.

      (There are some media players on websites that claim to not support Mac... and most of these work just fine if you can peel away the Javascript or Flash outside layer and get to the actual media file. All the big-name formats play just fine on OS X, assuming you've installed the right player for them.)

      --
      Comment of the year
    27. Re:Security by PopeOptimusPrime · · Score: 1

      My parents still use 98SE, which ends up being significantly more secure because very few people are out there still coding spyware and viruses for Win98.

    28. Re:Security by zootm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You misunderstand, sorry my wording was ambiguous. OpenBSD and OSX have the same roots, XP and Vista have the same roots, was my point. The point that the article was trying to get across is that these two systems with the same roots have different characteristics in terms of security, which is also the case with OSX and OpenBSD. Of course, I'm not saying that OSX is as insecure as XP, however.

    29. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      From your statement you appear to have no experience. With a code rewrite all the values added over years to previous code are thrown out. The fact is people programming now are no smarter than people programming ten years ago and the values need be reinstated.

    30. Re:Security by masklinn · · Score: 1

      How about running them in a VMWare session on a standalone machine separated from any kind of network that gets wiped after every run then?

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    31. Re:Security by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OpenBSD is a great system for secretaries and people in a finance department, for instance.

      I worked at one firm that was having problems with the computer systems their secretaries and finance department were using. Many of the workers would play games, or worse, they'd manage to infect the existing Windows XP systems with spyware.

      Considering they were doing basic word processing, spreadsheet and web-based data entry tasks, we decided that Windows XP was excessive. OpenBSD, OpenOffice, and Konqueror would be sufficient.

      The main benefit was that the systems just plain didn't get infected with viruses, spyware, and some such software. The price was a big benefit, too. And the ignorance of the general staff towards OpenBSD, and UNIX in general, helped. Instead of playing games and chatting, the employees had little to do but work. Productivity rose significantly within the weeks after switching over to OpenBSD.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    32. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Windows that doesn't work properly with capture cards. Linux and the BSDs handle it fine - MythTV or TiVo ring a bell?

    33. Re:Security by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who cares? There are programs that will run on OpenBSD that do more or less the same things as what the programs that run on Windows do. Anyone who learned how to use them the way an adult learns -- by understanding the underlying abstract concepts, rather than by simple blind repetition which is the way a child learns -- should be just fine with the alternatives.

      And you have to remember that there is a lot of legitimate Windows software that takes advantage of "features" in the inherently-insecure versions of Windows; the very same features that malware takes advantage of. If Vista is built inherently-secure, these programs simply will not run under it unless the security level is downgraded. Users of such programs might be tempted to switch to a BSD variant or GNU/Linux, even if only experimentally at first, just on the basis that at least it can't be any worse than what they're already having to put up with. Learning a few new key bindings is something you only have to do once; updating anti-virus software and recovering from unexplainable crashes are continuous processes.

      Between the release of Windows Vista and the release of GunCC 1.0, whenever that happens, there are going to be some interesting times. A lot of people are going to be bitten, and hard, by bad decisions from the past.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    34. Re:Security by VagaStorm · · Score: 1

      In some ways you are entierly correct, but you forget one realy important aspect. Many, if not most, of the flaws exploited by hackers has been discovered and information about it is already posted. Many of the ppl that find those error would be capable of writing a fix, or atleast point a finger directly at the problem so someone else could write a fix, if the source where available. With windows, they can usualy just say that when we do this and that, we are able to exploit the system in this and that way. They can never look at the code and tell what the real problem is. This, I belive, will make sure that open source systems generaly will be more secure in the long run than a closed source system.

      --
      www.aleo.no
    35. Re:Security by acidblood · · Score: 2, Informative

      The .WMF vulnerability is, as I understand, the result of poor design, not an implementation problem like a buffer overflow. Given the same API, the Wine project wrote an independent implementation which was also vulnerable. So if Vista has the same vulnerability, that says nothing about whether they used the same code from XP.

      --

      Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/

    36. Re:Security by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The parent poster was saying that Mac OS X was based on BSD, which it is. Mach was derived from BSD, and Mac OS X builds upon Mach. Of course, it also integrates code from the other BSDs, which tend to use code from each other, too.

      At one point there was a BSD-derived networking stack included with Windows. However, it is reported these days that a new implementation was written.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    37. Re:Security by Gonzoman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I usually don't get involved in OS wars but here goes:

      I keep hearing the argument that it is not worth it to write a virus for Linux because of a lower installed base. It seems to me that some Windows zealot would have done it by now just to prove it can be done if it is as easy as they imply.

      This leads me to believe that either:

      A: Windows zealots can't code

      or

      B: Linux is much more secure than Windows

    38. Re:Security by robgamble · · Score: 1

      That's a terrific idea! ...for C programmers. And people who don't run Windows-only applications.

      --
      No sig for you!
    39. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hm. Let's see... installing my Hauppauge card and Sage TV took approximately two hours on Windows, and that includes all the time I spent setting preferences. Oh, and it all worked on the first try.

      I spent over 16 hours *attempting* to install IVTV (the "official" Linux drivers for the Hauppauge capture cards) before giving up.

      During this period of time, I had help from two Linux experts. The best output I ever got from the cat was a postage-stamp-size mpeg2 movie with no sound and no way to change the channel. (Needless to say, the GUI TV viewer apps didn't work at all, and didn't give any clues as to why they wouldn't work.) That was on Ubuntu.

      Then I looked at other Linux distributions, and noticed that SUSE claims to support Hauppauge hardware out of the box. So I spend the hours downloaded 5 freakin' CDs worth of CRAP so I do a single task (not counted in the 16 hours) and install SUSE with default settings to my PC. During the install, it gives me an encouraging message, reading something like: "We've detected a video capture card in your computer, so you should install these TV viewer applications." I hit yes, install. Get a working, booting system, open the TV viewer app and... nothing! No error message, it just froze.

      Now, given, this was on Linux. But I can't imagine how it could be any easier on BSD.

      --
      Comment of the year
    40. Re:Security by Azarael · · Score: 1

      A new code base doesn't guarantee a good implementation either. Legacy usually has more testing and fixes behind it (and it already works) than new code. Chances are that if you throw away too much old code, your new design will be missing bug-fixes that exist in the original code.

      I'm pretty certain that Microsoft ends up re-factoring old code for most of their projects.

    41. Re:Security by laffer1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, but the MSDN video presentation on the Vista kernel shows that many things were "inherited from XP." It is based on XP.. do you honestly think MS could rewrite windows from scratch in the few years they've had with Vista since XP was released? Remember how long it took for 95 to get released.. it was postponed for years. Even when 95 shipped, it had a 16bit audio subsystem, etc.

      The vista kernel isn't even 100% new.. they just seperated logical sections of the kernel, etc. Its quite different, but not all new. Watch that video and you'll see that Microsoft did make security minded changes, and other choices because they screwed up in the past. ini files coming back (in a form) to replace the registry is another example. I learned more from that video than i did from any other source.

      You are correct that the WINE hole and the Apple Quicktime hole that are all similar to Microsoft's prove that it might not be the same codebase, but then again it might be as well. Netscape had a gif or jpeg issue similar years ago too.. (netscape 2 or 3?) Security holes happen to everyone. Microsoft is no worse than OSS software and no better either. I'm sure someone can point to 10 projects (or more) that have a great security history and I can point to many more that don't. I can't think of a commercial OS thats not vulnerable to something thats current. Even openbsd had a remote hole. My boss had a windows server get hit by that WMF hole and yet i had trouble convincing him to upgrade quicktime on our clients for the same reason. (idiot surfs on servers)

      --
      MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
    42. Re:Security by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you could extend that to "if you want security you must never run any executable file that didn't come with your OS outside of a VM sandbox".

      Anything that can be executed is a security threat. Random executables received from mails with "3bl4rg3 yu0r p3n1s" more than others, but few softwares actually have a bug/issue count of 0.

      There are things that can be done that allow for significant improvement over the current situation. The only catch is that it requires significant change to the base system, and some changes to applications that wish to run on the system.

      Instead of forcing everything outside of core OS software into a VM sandbox that completely restricts access to everything, you can have the system itself mandatorily mediate all access to system resources - in a sense have everything (except the kernel) sandboxed, but each sandbox flexibly defined according to a policy declaring what the software running inside the sandbox requires access to. Doing such a thing, of course, would require you to build such a security system into the kernel itself, preferably with some separation of policy and enforcement. You would also have to build a robust policy for the core system services, restricting each to their least privilege, and fixing anything that has unnecessary demands for access to system resources. At step two you would need to encourage more general user software to minimise unnecessary access demands, and generally making use of this new access control system (which would replace and/or augment file permissions, groups, etc.); hopefully applications would also provide suggested policy requests as well.

      That sounds like an awful lot of work, but thankfully we already have the kernel security structure and core sytem utility fixes. That means that we are at step two - we need to start promoting this system as the new access control mechanism, and try and get application developers to play nice with, and use, the new system.

      Jedidiah.

      --
      Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
    43. Re:Security by nittacci · · Score: 2

      Use OpenBSD? But most of my software won't run on it. You show me an open source OS that will let me run Cubase or Sonar or ProTools and I'll run out and buy it. Yeah, I've tried the emulators, and they suck.

    44. Re:Security by secolactico · · Score: 1
      Who cares? There are programs that will run on OpenBSD that do more or less the same things as what the programs that run on Windows do.


      Really? what's the OpenBSD equivalent of Microsoft Visio? World of Warcraft (don't say nethack)?
      --
      No sig
    45. Re:Security by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      The .wmf vulnerability was part of the specs that they implemented - it wasn't a bug. So it should exist whether or not they reused code.

      Microsoft made the "spec", they didn't just implement it. In any case, all of the inside-Microsoft blog posts blamed the fact that the code in question was very old for the fact that the fault persisted. I would imagine that someone clean-room implement "the spec" would have called it into question.

      It's highly likely they just reused old code, which makes sense.

      In any case, worries that Vista is "all new" are completely unfounded. Like many Microsoft adventures before, they had a grand vision but then had to backtrack, resetting the Vista codebase back to the Windows 2003 branch. Vista is going to be Windows 2003 (a superlative OS, as an aside) with some extra chrome. It isn't all-.net, and it isn't all new. It's just an evolution of the existing lines.

    46. Re:Security by kuzelnik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well ...
      FreeBSD *is* viable alternative to XP.
      Today I have even installed Windows-only Tutenstein game from kids.discovery.com on it for my little daughter using wine. A few days ago I have installed Linux binary Fentun to open winmail.dat file I have received form an Outlook/Exchange user.

      FreeBSD has more then 14000 ports available.

      It has got everything an ordinary user needs.
      Office, mail, browsers, chat, much greater number of supported media files than most Linux distros ...

      I know, It is comon belief FreeBSD is more difficult to install than XP.
      Well, Joe Sixpack isn't able to install Windows either.
      And tell me, how many users can remove dozens of malware, viruses, rootkits and other unwanted crappy applications from Windows?

      You install FreeBSD for a non-technical user once, and you do not have to come back to clean it up.

    47. Re:Security by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, you could run KDE {which includes Kivio} on OpenBSD. If not, have you tried using a pencil and paper?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    48. Re:Security by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Anyone who learned how to use them the way an adult learns -- by understanding the underlying abstract concepts, rather than by simple blind repetition which is the way a child learns -- should be just fine with the alternatives.

      Funny you mention it. When children are taught through rote memorization and repitition, it's called teaching for the test and the kids hate it (and have little to show for it). When adults learn through rote memorization, they're considered as being practical (and also have little to show for it).

    49. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how the problems were solved "socially". It was only the limited and obscure nature of BSD that solved the problem. The same goal could have been achieved using almost any modern OS that's not Windows. Notice also that the problem is not with Windows per se but the extreme popularity of Windows which motivates well-financed bad actors around the world to exploit any and all chinks in the armor.

      Here is how I solve similar situations: I tell the boss "This is the new rule: these computers will be used for work and work only. No games, no "cute" stuff, just work". The boss understands that if staff breaks the rule, it's gonna cost the boss money. The staff knows that their on notice because it's easy to tell who's been doing what (or at least I make them think that).

    50. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]but you can't doubt that M$ will be paying more attention to security in the fundamental design of Vista than they did in XP.

      That is exactly what was said re: 2000 - XP. We all know how that turned out.

    51. Re:Security by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Informative? Hardly. The grandparent was clearly saying that Mac OS X and OpenBSD are based on the same foundation as each other (BSD), while Vista and XP are based on the same foundation as each other (NT). He did NOT say that Windows was based on BSD.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    52. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, what Microsoft mean by security in this context is that your system will be wide open to access by third parties. This feature better allows government agencies to monitor terrorists and dissidents.

    53. Re:Security by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      NeXTStep?

    54. Re:Security by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Do you allow your employees to play World of Warcraft on company computers/time?

    55. Re:Security by labratuk · · Score: 1

      The code for Win2K ("NT5") was "all new" also.

      This is the same marketing schtick they used last time.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    56. Re:Security by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      the 'spec' never said anything about executing code when some invalid value happened to be equal to 1. That was a bug. And it's not a bug that likely would have been reproduced if even the same programmers had rewritten the code from scratch to meet the same specification.

      Vista is, without a shadow of doubt, based largely on older Windows code. It WILL have many of the same vulnerabilities as Windows XP. Time will prove this.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    57. Re:Security by utlemming · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know that the Slashdot crowd has mixed feelings about VMware, but honestly, I am a huge fan of it. VMware is what allowed me to switch from Windows to Linux, while keeping the programs that I need for school, and keep my wife happy. Further, I can run a different Windows for whatever the different need may be. For example, I have one Windows for personal use, work, school, security/spyware/malware research, Windows Server 2003, Windows 98, an Oracle enviroment, FreeBSD, and several different Linux bases installed. Before I made the leap, I tried VMware in Windows, and decided that it was a viable alternative and then made the conversion to Linux. The great thing about running Windows under Linux is that I have not had any spyware problems since converting, nor virus problems -- probably because I surf the internet and do email under Linux as opposed to Windows. The downside to this approach is that it 1) Expensive, VMware cost $189 for Linux, but they do give you a 30-day license; 2.) You have to have a lot of memory in order to get the full benefit. 3.) You still need a license for Windows. However, I get better performance for my Windows installations under Linux than I did with a native Windows installation. And then you can do snapshots and other features. Even if you manage to hose your Linux installation, short of deleting your virtual machine files, your virtual machines are safe.

      Anyhow, the point of the post, is that if you seriously would like to be able to migrate away from Windows, and need to be able to maintain compatablilty, then look at VMware. Unlike some of the other virtualization solutions, VMware is extremely professional, polished, and does a slick job. I am the president of a Linux and Unix User group and we distribute VMware disk images for use in VMPlayer (which is free) to help people get farmiliar with Linux. The quaility of VMware is such that after using a beta release for two months I couldn't help but buy it after the beta expired -- their beta was so professional, I was really impressed.

      And no, I don't work for VMware.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    58. Re:Security by secolactico · · Score: 1
      Do you allow your employees to play World of Warcraft on company computers/time?


      Nope. What's that got to do with the subject at hand?
      --
      No sig
    59. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if programs didn't behave in a way I expected I found it simple to find solutions,

      I didn't, and I doubt I will next time I come across another one, either. (Nothing but Linux on my computers since 2001.)

      the error messages meant something

      You mean like "SDL: parachute deployed"?

      It's cool that the word-in-the-image is "oysters," I think. A shell on the outside, and a pearl (PERL) on the inside...

    60. Re:Security by wbren · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Installing software didn't require the usual "Next, Next, uncheck every checkbox, delete desktop and quicklaunch icons, uninstall additional software installed along with the software I actually wanted, check for hidden startup items, make sure program doesn't phone home"
      Plenty of Linux users will tell you Linux needs a standardized installation utility, not the collection of package managers out there now. Many times I am forced to use the command line to install applications. Come on... that just screams "hard-to-use".
      when I started my PC I wasn't greeted by millions of splash screens, applications that couldn't make a connection popping up and letting me know
      A good program won't do that, so apparently you were installing bad programs. Even popular programs are bad in that respect. Norton nags you freqeuntly, and so do a lot of spyware blocking tools like SpySweeper. I get ZERO popup messages from programs on startup. Zero. I haven't done anything special. I just chose to run something other than Norton, other than SpySweeper, etc.
      I didn't have to readjust settings that kept resetting for some reason (volume levels, icon positions on the quicklaunch)
      Volume levels can be changed by rogue applications in Linux too, and as far as quick launch buttons are concerned... I doubt it happened very often, certainly not often enough to justify a switch to Linux.
      GNU/Linux is about using your PC and not just working around problems to get what you want... and then I realized that upon discovering all this I didn't even have to worry about viruses at all, and I had no problems with crashes at all!
      Plenty of people have complained about crashes with Linux systems. Sure, it's rock solid in its command line form, but the X system is by no means 100% stable. As for viruses, things like Blaster are tough. In general however, the same rules still apply to Linux. Viruses in Linux can still delete your documents, they just can't completely blow the OS out of the water. I've run at least one Windows box at all times for the past 10 years, and have I ever gotten a virus? No. Claiming "I didn't even have to worry about viruses at all" is very foolish.
      Even if programs didn't behave in a way I expected I found it simple to find solutions, the error messages meant something and I could see exceptions thrown if I launched an application from a terminal, etc...
      So you're saying unexpected things happened and required effort on your part to find a solution? Oh, I'll just disregard your entire message now.

      Whether you meant to or not, you ended up sounding like a Linux fanboy, and that takes so much punch from your argument. Neither Linux nor Windows are perfect, yet you are basically claiming Linux is a field of daisies compared to the hellish swamp of Windows. Grow up.
      --
      -William Brendel
    61. Re:Security by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "And beyond that it's probably safer to use something like OpenBSD instead of XP."

      I mean, seriously, just who is your post directed too? I can tell my clients: Use Firefox instead of IE, I sometimes tell them use OSX instead of XP. I even see situations where I might suggest Linux over XP or OSX.

      But for the life of me, I don't ever ever see a situation where I go: " Yeah!, use BSD - it's a viable alternative to XP or OSX".

      You should take a look at the current FreeBSD. I've found it to be quite practical as a home or office desktop with KDE or Gnome. The excellent remote-administration capabilties make it a good choice for multiple-workstation environments.

      There are also some beginner-oriented FreeBSD-based distributions that make installing and setting up a FreeBSD desktop system an almost Mandriva-like experience, and quite a bit easier (IMHO) than installing and setting up any windows version I've tried. A couple that come to mind are PC-BSD http://www.pcbsd.org/ and DesktopBSD http://www.desktopbsd.net/

      PC-BSD has, in addition to the excellent BSD "ports" system for software management, a custom software-package system that makes installing things like Java and Flash a click-click-click-done nearly windows-like experience.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    62. Re:Security by NMZNMZNMZ · · Score: 1

      When I started running Linux, I quickly saw the advantages... Installing software didn't require the usual "Next, Next, uncheck every checkbox, delete desktop and quicklaunch icons, uninstall additional software installed along with the software I actually wanted, check for hidden startup items, make sure program doesn't phone home", when I started my PC I wasn't greeted by millions of splash screens, applications that couldn't make a connection popping up and letting me know, I didn't have to readjust settings that kept resetting for some reason (volume levels, icon positions on the quicklaunch)... GNU/Linux is about using your PC and not just working around problems to get what you want...

      Try using quality software then. Yes, it exists for Windows. I'm curious to know what you were installing that gave you so much trouble? I use quite a few programs (Firefox, Thunderbird, Trillian, JetAudio, several games) and none of them ever give me crap like that when installing or after. Sounds to me like you weren't using your PC properly -- that's hardly Windows's fault.

    63. Re:Security by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1
      To sum up, your installation experience for a specific bit of hardware under Windows was bad (unless 9/10 of that time was voluntary tweaking of settings, I'd call 2 hours bad) and under Linux was worse. I hear Macs handily beat PCs in this area.

      Maybe the hardware manufacturer ought to explain why they can't make a system that can be set up in less than 2 hours, and why they don't support Linux better. I'd point the finger at them rather than either of Windows or Linux. Computer freezes like you describe are the fault of crappy hardware. The PC's design is such that a misbehaving piece of hardware can lock up the PC no matter what any operating system tries to prevent that.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    64. Re:Security by Jezza · · Score: 2, Funny

      Blakey Rat said: "And it only takes 4 days to get your video capture card working, that is, if you can manage it at all!"

      Sure, but at least it won't get a Virus and send a picture of you in your undercrackers to Paris Hilton's cell phone. :-)

    65. Re:Security by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Are we talking Linux or OpenBSD?

      I installed my video capture card in OpenSuSE 10.0 in about 3 minutes. Most of that was time spent shutting down, opening case, and then booting. The actual software setup took ~15 seconds.

      Click yes to "Do you want to setup your new (ATI) TV card".
      Click auto.
      Click yes.
      Click Finished.

      Done.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    66. Re:Security by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Bizarre. I've never had a problem with either a Happenhauge (sp?) or ATI card on SuSE, on a wide variety of machines.

      They just work out of box. You should log this as a bug with SuSE; they actually tend to fix stuff like this.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    67. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah ok. (Sarcasm)

    68. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Great, so you're a superhero. So it works for some people. And not for others.

      However, Sage TV on Windows works for everybody.

      --
      Comment of the year
    69. Re:Security by opposume · · Score: 1

      Right tool for the right job there sweet tits... He's saying that in a corporate environment you're not going to need to run WoW or any other shit like that where as OpenBSD or any other *nix will more than substantially replace a windows box with a greater sense of security.

      --
      I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
    70. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! You wouldn't want to buy my 7500 AIW? Pretty cheap... But it won't work very well under linux.. no mythtv..

    71. Re:Security by bowlingfreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You get stuff like this on both sides. Here's mine.
      I built 2 64bit AMD boxes, and purchased WinXP X64 for both. I figured one would be a Win box for my wife, the other would be dual boot, Win for games, Fedora Core 4 for development.
      I spent about 2 weeks finding and downloading drivers for the Windows installs. Everything on the motherboard (including 1Gb network card), the DVD RW, video card...
      I was ALMOST afraid of putting Fedora Core 4 64bit on it, but figured I could get it working with some work. So installing Fedora was a much, different experience. Put in the DVD and follow the install screens. No drivers to find and everything worked out of the box.
      So in MY case, Windows took days, Linux was less than an hour.

    72. Re:Security by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's true. My cousin has been struggling to get an ATI TV tuner (USB 2.0) working on his XP desktop. He's been messing with it for two weeks. Whenever you start the app up, the desktop freezes (BSOD).

      We've even tried a clean install. My next theory is some incompatibility with the built-in video card. I'm going to try with Knoppixmyth first, though.

      I'm not sure I can figure out why some people have a great experience, and others have a terrible experience. But I do know I see both (good and bad) on both (linux and windows).

      *shrug*

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    73. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1) Two hours is about right for setting up a PVR. That's how long it took to set up my parent's Dish Network PVR, more or less.

      2) The computer didn't freeze, and it wasn't a hardware error. (The hardware works flawlessly in Windows.) It was the TV viewer application that froze.

      3) Hauppauge cards don't work on OS X. But at least OS X doesn't *claim* that they do, unlike SUSE.

      --
      Comment of the year
    74. Re:Security by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was thinking of a cousin post by Cyric Z. (where he mentions deploying it in a company setting) instead of his grandfather post.

    75. Re:Security by unhooked · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine it has changed much since 1996(ish), but pkg_add -r fxtv ; kldload bktr wasn't too terribly hard back in the day.

    76. Re:Security by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Kvisio.

      Does OpenBSD run FreeBSD apps? 'cause if so, you can run Cedega, and thereafter the OpenBSD equivalent of World of Warcraft is .... World of Warcraft!

      I happily run WoW on SuSE linux.

      Here's a guide for WoW on FreeBSD: http://cedega.firepipe.net/

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    77. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why were the people admins then? Open BSD is no "More" immune to the spyware problem then windows, it's just that the spyware vendors aren't writing spyware for BSD right now it's not worth their time. But if the Secretaries weren't local administrators, 99% of the malware couldn't install. Sounds like an excessive sledgehammer to make up for a system admin who didn't do his job.

    78. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      1. Windows 3.1: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      2. Windows 95: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      3. Windows 98: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      4. Windows 2000: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      5. Windows XP: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      6. Windows 2003: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      7. Windows Vista: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      8. Windows 2009: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      9. Windows 2012: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      10. Windows 2015: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      11. Windows 2018: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.
      12. ...
      Microsoft will have a problem, it cann't solve the exhaustive list of problems: Microsoft is a problem for the National Security.
    79. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just installed a Happauge WinTV PVR-150 the other day. The system is a dedicated PVR running Debian with MythTV as the PVR Front-end. I was actually upgrading the card. Total time was about 5 hours. This included: Installation of the happague card, trying to install the IVTV debian package, finding out that didn't work, upgrading the distribution, downloading the IVTV drivers source, upgrading the Kernel to 2.6, recompiling the Kernel, compiling IVTV, downloading the happague firmware from the IVTV site, following the instructions, recompiling the kernel again about 4x before i got it right, then recompiling LIRC which apparently broke duing the 2.4 -> 2.6 upgrade, and getting everything working again. Realize about 1/2 the way through I almost threw the machine across the room and installed Windows, but I have had MythTV working flawlessly for about 8 months now... it is pretty sweet. Bottom line is I got it working, albeit with a little elbow grease required. It improved the video quality three-fold from the card I had in there previously.

    80. Re:Security by glitch23 · · Score: 0, Informative

      I agree VMware is really nice and you could even split the initial cost for the application with some friends and then take advantage of VMWare's vmplayer which plays back any pre-created virtual machine file. So once you buy VMvware and split it with 5 people ($40 a piece approx.), make a bare virtual machine file, give it to all 5 people, and they can use vmplayer to actually play it back. If anything happens to it just give them the original bare vm file. VMplayer by the way is free and it also reads VirtualPC files (but I believe it ends up creating a vmware file to coincide with it). VMware is also distributing a browser virutal machine that is about 900 megs uncompressed that is a linux distro (ubuntu I think) in the virtual machine and has firefox (or mozilla, i forget) installed so you can browse the net within the vm like you said you do already. By the way, with all the VMs you said you have I hope you have a lot of memory because each one probably requires a minimum of 200MB of RAM. I run at most 3 VMs at one time and they use up the majority of my gig of RAM.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    81. Re:Security by toadlife · · Score: 1

      "...kldload bktr wasn't too terribly hard back in the day."

      Hauppauge cards aren't based on the Brooktree chipset.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    82. Re:Security by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Yes they are... historically they've always been BT848/BT878 based. Even the one I had 5 years ago was a BT848.

    83. Re:Security by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      You bother deleting them?

      I bounce the lot at the mailserver.. if people want to send me emails they need to send me emails, not oversized word documents with 'email attached' in the text body.

    84. Re:Security by rnpg1014 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think Transmogrify_UK was refering to websites that say you should use Windows 98/2000/XP and don't provide support for any browser besides IE, leaving you unable to view anything because of the massive ammount of ActiveX plugins used in the site. And even if there are no ActiveX plugins, i'm sure most Windows-using webmasters couldn't care less about standards compliance and modifying their websites to work with Firefox / Safari / Konqueror. Still, I have in fact run into websites from my school's macs that completely deny mac access. A little tweaking can solve that, however.

      --
      - Nick
    85. Re:Security by tacocat · · Score: 1

      OK, I get the point. You had a really bad experience with a video card...

      I would agree with you some years ago. But the terrain has changed considerably. There is plenty of hardware out there that can run just fine with Linux. But you have to bear in mind you have the same problem with Linux that you have with Macintosh and Windows (in the past). Not everything works with every version of your software.

      You really need to consider getting into the practice of verifying the hardware you are going to buy actually works with Linux. And before you start bitching about how you don't do this with Windows... You can't run Macintosh hardware under Windows XP and I'm not sure that you can run Wolfenstein 3D on Windows XP either.

      But if you do any homework or just get a little careful about your selection you won't have problem. But there's a lot of cheap crap out there that barely works with Windows and definitely won't work with Linux.

    86. Re:Security by woobieman29 · · Score: 1
      The thing that worries me the most about the Microsoft security model is summed up nicely by Mr. Allchin - "Safety and security is the overriding feature that most people will want to have Windows Vista for."

      The big problem here as I see it is that Security is not a "Feature", and it isn't something that you can bolt on afterwards with virus scanners, spyware scanners, etc. the one real security benefit that I can see is the ability to run more easily as a non-admin user, but I will not be convinced that this is really true until I see how it works in the real world, using real apps (including legacy ones).

      --
      \/\/oobie
    87. Re:Security by arminw · · Score: 2, Informative

      ....websites from my school's macs that completely deny mac access.....

      Turn on the Safari debug menu and get Safari to lie to the offending website. It may display screwy, but it will get you in every time.

      --
      All theory is gray
    88. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I had the card before I decided to use it to make a PVR. SUSE Linux claims that the card works. Look, I can be careful all I want, but if the Linux distro *lies* about what hardware works, how do I fight against that?

      --
      Comment of the year
    89. Re:Security by itior · · Score: 0

      So in other words:

      I don't know how to administer my copy of Windows, therefore it sucks?

      Convincing argument.

    90. Re:Security by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....I sometimes tell them use OSX instead of XP. .....

      So what will VISTA offer users in the future that the OSX doesn't give you today? I seriously doubt it will be as secure as OSX. For every generation of Windows from Win98 on, MS has promised better security. If anything, it has gotten worse.

      It would be interesting for someone who knows, to make a list of VISTA features that are not NOW in OSX. Will VISTA run on most say 3 year old or newer PCs and will it run faster? In OSX, suceeding iterations usually run faster on some of the older hardware it runs on at all. !0.4.3 runs faster on my Ti Powerbook than 10.2.8 did. In Windows the opposite has generally been the case. Win2K runs faster than XP on the same systems, especially if there isn't plenty of RAM.

      Will there be an OSX 10.5 by the time VISTA finally shows up? Will VISTA have a cool, easy to use, integrated suite of applications akin to iLife?

      How many existing games will still work, especially since games usually require unfettered access to all parts of the computer. wnich means the equivalent of running as root on *NIX systems.

      If the new access and security features mentioned in the article will truly be implemented, many existing programs will no longer work. By not releasing updates for the older software MS will certainly force some users to upgrade, but it may also be the impetus for many users to finally abandon the MS ship.

      --
      All theory is gray
    91. Re:Security by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1

      None of the reaons you give for why linux is so marvellous are intrinsic to either Linux or XP. If XP didn't exist and linux were the only monkey in town the chumps would be feeding it unsuitable substances instead.

    92. Re:Security by CrossChris · · Score: 1

      Every new version of Windows claims to be "completely new code", but soon enough we find the same old security flaws, instabilities and other miscellaneous stupidities. The "new" rubbish will be the same as the old rubbish, but with a shinier new look!

    93. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your the one who took away my games!!!! now i am fored to...dare I say, work!

    94. Re:Security by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      This leads me to believe that either:

      A: Windows zealots can't code

      or

      B: Linux is much more secure than Windows

      The word "zealot" has been diluted. A zealot nowadays is a talker, not a doer.

    95. Re:Security by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      If not, have you tried using a pencil and paper?

      I guess that's a better answer than 'write it yourself.' No, wait, it isn't.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    96. Re:Security by m.lp.ql.m · · Score: 2, Funny

      > 12. ...
      13. Profit!

    97. Re:Security by exkate72 · · Score: 1
      Excellant! Not only will it BSOD with a fancy new interface, it will also do so ... securely.

      Microsoft innovation at work.

    98. Re:Security by ClamIAm · · Score: 2, Funny
      The best output I ever got from the cat

      Dude people are running Linux on cats now?

    99. Re:Security by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's so frustrating sometimes that so many posters on Slashdot continue to be misinformed about things that are common knowledge in the tech world.

      Vista had the same flaw because it's got the same Win32 code. Vista is not a rewrite of Windows. It's based off the Windows 2003 code, which was based off XP. It's the same Windows as before but with some new rushed 1.0 APIs for hackers to crack. WinFX is just a layer on top of Win32. It's the same Win32 Windows we've known all along with some internal updates (i.e., a new networking stack).

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    100. Re:Security by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      So you bought a Mac?

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    101. Re:Security by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Well the bktr driver doesn't work with my Hauppauge WinTV PVR150 card, so I assumed it didn't use the Brooktree chipset.

      My old ATI TV Wonder was based on the BT848 chipset and worked okay with it.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    102. Re:Security by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it took you 2 hours to set up a dish network PVR? please tell me that includes you installing and aligning the dish itself.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    103. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Plenty of Linux users will tell you Linux needs a standardized installation utility"

      Like Klik? http://klik.atekon.de/

    104. Re:Security by carl0ski · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did that got X64 to replace XP

      what a nightmare

      A motherboard box with the clear label 64bit compatible
      Access the CD bang absolutely NO windows X64 drivers included

      took 2 hours to install Audigy X64 Drivers (creative claims unsupported) you must have previous drivers installed to use this Installer.

      TV card didnt have X64 drivers
      The mainboard website had nothing much NIC and Sound

      my Canon Printer didnt have X64 drivers
      Battlefield was acting up ATI drivers were sub par
      and to top it the problem with Windows Failing to use more that 2GB ram still existed.

      X64 Fedora Suse10.0 and Mandriva 2006 all installed all the above hardware , and it used all resources far better than 32bit Linux Distros


      Windows has reset their position of,
      Best driver support available
      and Linux has taken the crown for now.

    105. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking it's almost time to DDOS atspace.com, just to shut this fuckwit up.

    106. Re:Security by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Linux us a field of daiseys, compared to Windows. There I said it. And no I wasn't born into Linux. I have used Windows since 3.1. And even before I found Linux I always thought that there had to be a better way....3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98 Plus, ME, 2000 Pro/Server, XP Home/Pro

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    107. Re:Security by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      The software the commons with the hardware, is often what cuases alot of those things. No need to go looking for them.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    108. Re:Security by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's a trick when installing windows any version. You must install the drivers in the correct order, no matter what the instructions say, you must reboot between each and every software driver install. Other tricks are, add new hardware, do a complete re-install (clears up the build up of errors in the reigistry which can really stuff up new driver installs).

      The other thing don't install any other sofwtare until you have completed all the hardware driver installs and applied all the windows patches. Slipstreaming is they way to go becuase that avoids connecting to the net to downgrade the patches before configuring installing you non-microsoft firewall (anybody the uses a brondband modem instead of a router/firewall with windows needs their head read) and yes the microsoft firewall is really "soft" software and is only just barely better than nothing.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    109. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VMWare is good for keeping your Windows viruses on Linux.

    110. Re:Security by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      4. Windows 2000: SELL it, CRASH it, and FORGET it.

      Technically for windows that step ain't quite correct as it has been to date the most stable windows operating system (that is why microsoft charge more for it than stale piss becuase it is better) and with other companies security software, it is far more secure than stale piss out of the box.

      Vista bogged down to the eyeballs with the latest microsoft drm is likely to be a pretty bad release as they again use their customers to bug test this new "er" feature.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    111. Re:Security by HSpirit · · Score: 1

      Does OpenBSD run FreeBSD apps?
      As a matter of fact, it does, as well as binaries from other common operating systems.
    112. Re:Security by mcubed · · Score: 1
      I know, It is comon belief FreeBSD is more difficult to install than XP.

      As a rank amateur who likes fiddling around with software (purely as a user, not as a coder), I've installed and reinstalled at least a dozen OSes over the past few years, including Windows XP. There have been only two I couldn't get installed -- one dodgy Linux distro whose name escapes me, and FreeBSD. I even bought the box at CompUSA, so I could get the manual, which is worth having around even if you don't use BSD. So from my perspective, the "common belief" reflects reality. Perhaps BSD has improved in this regard. Apart from not being eager to deal with the frustration of failing at it again, another thing that holds me back is the file system issue. It's tricky enough to set up your system to accomodate Windows and Linux file systems without adding yet another into the mix.

      Michael

      --
      "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
    113. Re:Security by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Some cards have less support than others in Linux. That's mostly due to driver support from the manufacturers. In most cases, there isn't any. And even if there is, a user has to escape from the GUI and install the video driver. Not the most convenient thing.

      On the other hand, Linux does tend to give more information about hardware. For instance, it really helps if you can identify your card using the strings reported on the PCI bus. I've had to disassemble quite a few PC's just to get the label from the PCI card.

    114. Re:Security by zootm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Vista bogged down to the eyeballs with the latest microsoft drm is likely to be a pretty bad release as they again use their customers to bug test this new "er" feature.

      I sincerely hope you're wrong about that, but I fear you're probably right. My hope is the fact that they're calling the feature "optional" will allow me to get away (since I don't intend on using DRMed media), but it might lead to more widespread adoption of such nonsense technology.

    115. Re:Security by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      The Hauppauge windows stuff is lousy though. I have to use it pretty much every day for my job. It took me as you say about 2 hours to get it "basically" set up. It took me a couple of months to find all the registry tweaks to make it actually work in some kind of approaching to sensible way. The UI for it is some of the most appalling software I have ever experienced on Windows.

      This is just bitching about Hauppauge. I won't claim it's any better on Linux. My Linux experiences with just about anything have all been bad, so I can well believe that it was a nightmare.

    116. Re:Security by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      There is the issue that the end user doesn't know what sandbox to allow things into, so they just click okokok until it works. The alternative is to require digital signing of all code by a "trusted" party (microsoft), but I'm sure there are many who for very good reasons don't want to even think about going down that route.

    117. Re:Security by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Signing of digital code is already in the works: take a good look at the "trusted computing initiative", formerly called Palladium. While it has some very real benefits for software security, it's also easy to use it to restrict legal and reasonable behavior. These as using debugging tools on software, or being able to read a file with software that is not Palladium authorized in order to be able to copy bits of its content for quoting, or even to make a backup copy of a CD or DVD.

    118. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      M$

      Stop it.

    119. Re:Security by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      you do realise there's a Red Screen of Death now...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    120. Re:Security by HalAtWork · · Score: 1
      Plenty of Linux users will tell you Linux needs a standardized installation utility, not the collection of package managers out there now. Many times I am forced to use the command line to install applications. Come on... that just screams "hard-to-use".

      I don't use the command line, I use Synaptic. It's like "Add/Remove Programs" except it lets you add programs... "Add/Remove" in Windows usually just has the uninstall option. I'm happy with the way it is now and avoiding all the stupid wizards.

      A good program won't do that, so apparently you were installing bad programs

      My point was on Linux I didn't have to worry about bad programs... at all. None had wizards, none installed additional programs, none had icons for software that wasn't installed or icons for URLs to some web site or other advertisements, none had me uncheck a bunch of stuff for privacy settings, none had any privacy issues or needed to phone home. None.

      Volume levels can be changed by rogue applications in Linux too, and as far as quick launch buttons are concerned... I doubt it happened very often, certainly not often enough to justify a switch to Linux.

      Each program I have that uses multimedia has its own volume control, so no, it doesn't happen in Linux. In Windows the quick launch button order was changed every time I would boot up. One solution I had was to name every icon with a number at the beginning, from 01 to 99. However this got annoying very quickly. It wasn't a reason to move to Linux, but a bunch of annoying little problems such as this are eliminated in Linux and it just means I don't have to worry about resetting a bunch of things routinely, and that's great for me. In Internet Explorer the bookmarks would change order too if I had drop-down menus on my Links bar, that's another example. I know this has been fixed but in that case it actually caused me to use another browser!

      Plenty of people have complained about crashes with Linux systems

      Sure, and plenty in Windows too. The difference is in Linux I can locate the problem and fix it easily, however it hasn't happened yet so I'm not complaining. I also have never caught a virus running Linux. At the point when I stopped using Windows, it was hard to stay virus-free at one point, and I also had to fix other PCs in the house and of family members, not to mention all the clients I had... so I'm happy now at least that I don't have to worry about anything on my PC or family's, since I switched them to Linux as well.

      Neither Linux nor Windows are perfect, yet you are basically claiming Linux is a field of daisies compared to the hellish swamp of Windows.

      Well not really, I'm just stating my experience.

      --
      Twinstiq, game news
    121. Re:Security by JulesLt · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised. I've been using Macs again since the Mini (first time since the 80s), and I've not really experienced that many sites requiring IE / Windows anymore. Even my bank has quietly fixed the bugs in their site. About the only ones I've really had issues with are the photo-upload ones.

      I think the main driver on this has been the disability goods and services law in the UK/Europe (which doesn't affect free / information based sites, but anything that sells stuff) - sites legally need to be 'accessible' - which might mean having a separate cut-down version, or alternatively keeping your site standards compliant.

      The other would be the popularity of Firefox, particularly in mainland Europe. As a business, are you going to develop your site twice, or do it the right way?

      --
      'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
    122. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the "Green Screen" days when USAF maintenance data was entered at Unix terminals and there were no PCs in the workcenter, people logged in, worked, and logged off. Text input into TICARRS, CAMS, etc was quick and easy.
      Now people use workstations to browse Slashdot, and productivity drops...

    123. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      None of the reaons you give for why linux is so marvellous are intrinsic to either Linux or XP.

      Or any OS, really. Any OS can have any feature. It's just that the overall Linux experience went smoother for me because of the reasons I stated.

    124. Re:Security by HalAtWork · · Score: 1
      As one user stated, software that comes with hardware is an example (take Creative Labs for example. I used 3rd party drivers instead but with Vista that may not even be possible). Adobe Photoshop will phone home if you try to scan money. Not that I ever plan on counterfeiting money, but what if I did want to scan some one day for any reason, such as a backdrop for a title in a slideshow about finances, or using it as a texture in some art, or any other reason? Who knows what other measures are in there for any other reason?

      Anyway my point is really not with any particular piece of software, but with a lot of software available, if not the majority. On Windows tons of software installs icons on the desktop for web sites or to advertise other products, tons of software nags you to upgrade to a Pro version, tons of software has splash screens that you have to find an option to shut off or can't even shut off. Lots of software requires you to uncheck stuff during installation so it doesn't install any of it's "preferred partners" software, lots of software requires you to uncheck stuff for privacy reasons as well. You have to check for hidden startup items that you don't want started up, and when these programs try to re-add themselves again when you start up the application, you have to figure out a way to stop it from doing that.

      When I install software on Linux it's through the same interface and there are no steps beyond just specifying whether or not you want that piece of software installed. You don't have to worry about an additional payload on your PC besides the installed software, or any "features" that nag you to try out partner's services or upgrade to Pro version or whatever.

      Say I just got into digital music and had never used any software before for it at all. In Windows, my experience would be downloading a bunch of programs to try them and see which one I like. Inevitably I'd run into these problems, so I'd have to look specifically for software that doesn't have any annoyances. The only way you'd know is by looking up reviews (and even then, they might not mention it or you don't know if it's a reputable source, not everyone reviews every application, etc) or just trying all the software yourself and just hope that nothing bad happens.

      In Linux, I wouldn't have to worry about those things ever.

      --
      Twinstiq, game news
    125. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when did this miserable failure happen?

      I've installed FreeBSD numerous times for the last three years, and the only time I've had trouble was when I tried to install it over the net using a wireless network card (with part-proprietary drivers) which wasn't supported by the standard kernel.

      I might add that I've never programmed anything more advanced than a Hello World-program.

    126. Re:Security by mcubed · · Score: 1
      Hmm... I would guess about 1 1/2 or so years ago. It was FreeBSD v5 something. The main stumbling block I encountered was disc geometry errors, which I read plenty about but could find no way to fix or overcome short of wiping my hard drive and starting from scratch. I didn't want to do that.

      I still don't understand why BSD had a problem with my hard drive when Windows and multiple Linux distros didn't.

      Michael

      --
      "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
    127. Re:Security by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      No I mean like "No write permission to ~/.ICEauthority", and then I just check for the proper permissions. I'm not talking about software development where you might actually see such an error message.

      --
      Twinstiq, game news
    128. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, specifically: "No matter how much you can learn about Windows, it won't be enough to fix fundamental problems"... The same can't be said about Linux. You can learn enough to fix fundamental problems in Linux, and problems that are showstoppers under Windows are trivial to fix in Linux; That is, if they even occur.

    129. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I agree, Hauppauge's software is terrible. But their drivers work without any problem, and SageTV works without any problem, and that's the combination I need.

      In Linux, both the ivtv drivers suck ass *and* the TV viewer apps suck ass. I never even got to the point where I could start installing a PVR app, because I never got a reasonable image out of the thing.

      --
      Comment of the year
    130. Re:Security by g33kst3r · · Score: 1

      Historically speaking, in Redmond the "S" word apparently means different things to different departments/coders; its relative. I'd suggest adopting the same policy that most IT shops used when XP was released; wait until SP1 is released before serious consideration. .02

      --
      I can't find the "Any" key!
    131. Re:Security by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Ditto here. I have an AiW8500DV and an AiW7500.

      TO get them to work I could downgrade to XFree86 (ugh!) and run Gatos, and STILL not get MythTV, or I can fiddle with Xorg 6.9 (it's slow and unoptimized at this point) and STILL not get MythTV, or I can continue running Xorg 6.8.2 with its high frame rates, using the AiW cards purely as video cards and eventually break down to buy Hauppauge cards.

      Oh, tell ya what! If your Hauppauge card is a PVR250 or PVR350, I'll trade you an AiW 8500DV card for it. That is, if you can get the ATI hardware working.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    132. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a superhero because his computer just works?

      Fucking troll.

    133. Re:Security by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      It is likely to be as optional as windows messenger, internet explorer, outlook express and windows media player, as well as components of frontpage and netmeeting (and risky services like COM+ and DCOM)

      What the customer wants or what the business customers needs has nothing to do with these choices, forcing the packages is all a extending a monopoly and being able to charge additional licence fees to other software companies. They problems and cost to the customers pales into insignificance compared to the self-righteous drive for yet more microsoft profits.

      The only thing microsoft can be relied upon is the contempt they show for the needs of their customers (always hidden to start with but inevitably becomes apparent after the software has been out there for a while, no matter how much the microtrolls flood forums with, "it's all the incompetant customer's fault", "it's other companies software","it's other companies hardware","it's other companies drivers"), apart from of course, in their marketing campaigns.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    134. Re:Security by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      With trusted computing and drm teh answer is yes with security.

      It will be Microsoft's selling point since running unsigned apps will be impossible if you setup windows Vista this way. IT departments will love this.

      Meanwhile it sounds scary for the rest of us.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    135. Re:Security by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      And it only takes 4 days to get your video capture card working

      And by then you probably have messed around so much that it's as insecure as Windows 95...

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    136. Re:Security by sharekk · · Score: 1

      I'm a huge fan of VMware too and as it helped me to make the switch I assumed it'd work for everyone. The problem is that for some applications (photoshop, autocad) it's just painful to use. If the applications you want under windows are fairly lightweight then VMWare is perfect. If you're using a lot of your computer's resources though it can be horribly slow.

    137. Re:Security by zootm · · Score: 1

      This is largely true. But Linux/BSD aren't particularly great on the desktop yet (I use them on all but my main system), and I can't afford a Mac, so having bad features I can turn off is unforunately my preference to not doing what I want them to.

      I'm fairly sure I could get Linux to do what I want, though, but there's a lack of perseverance on my part. Lack of character, I'm afraid. :(

    138. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.. Learn to read English, please?

      "Safety and security is the overriding feature that most people will want to have Windows Vista for."
      --Jim Allchin, group vice president, Microsoft

      You call that English? It even got a call-out in the story.

      "Safety and security are the overriding features for which most people will want to have Windows Vista."

      I find "overriding features" to be a poor turn of phrase as well. "Deciding features" would make more sense.

    139. Re:Security by tacocat · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that the chips change on the board and the vendor will never identify that fact? You might check into the possibility that your (older) card is not quite the same as the card specified by SuSE Linux. I see this far too often, especially with PVR and USB devices.

    140. Re:Security by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      SUSE says "WinTV PVR 250." My card says "WinTV PVR 250" on top of it. What the hell do you want?

      I like all the Linux zealots here trying to make SUSE's fucked up hardware compatibility list into *my* fault somehow. Look, SUSE says it works. It doesn't work. Period.

      --
      Comment of the year
    141. Re:Security by tacocat · · Score: 1

      Why don't you go back to the people who made the card and ask them why they changed the chipset without telling anyone about it. Get a fucking clue. Not even the crappy hardware made for Windows works on every version of windows and often times the drivers aren't compatable with hardware made 6 months earlier under the same name.

      Quite frankly, I would be more than pleased if you decided to never visit the halls of open source software again. This cry-baby attitude of it doesn't work and it's all their fault pisses me off. I could bore you to tears with the number of times I have purchased hardware product X and have it work 100% perfectly out of the box. Then if I purchase another item of the same model number and SKU 6 months later, it doesn't fucking work worth a damn. Why? Because they changed the chipsets and didn't tell anyone. And if you want support on linux they tell you to push a rope.

      BTW, PVR did change their chipset and create a 'broken' version of the card. IIRC you need the one with the number '99' on the lower corner on the back of the box, or something like that. I know if it >99 you are screwed by design of Hauppauge. So go whine to them or stick with Windows but make sure you have the latest drivers or you are still screwed. See, it doesn't change just because it's Linux.

      It's the fucking hardware.

      If you want it to work, do some research before you buy it. And I mean real research. Find out who else is having trouble with the card, why, and if there is something than can be done about it. Every piece of hardware I buy I check for compatability. Not from the vendor, but from the real world. Especially with PVR cards, Video cards, and web cams.

    142. Re:Security by ankhank · · Score: 1

      Look for a setting in your web browser that spoofs those sites by telling them you're using IE.

  2. Ooh er by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The east end thug from the armando iannuchi shows springs to mind:

    "If you don't buy Windows Vista and put it on your computer... I will fucking kill you"

  3. really? are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this about NX and other real upgrades to security which benefit more than just the OS, rather than a downgrading of security in XP?

    Or perhaps it's really a euphemism about DRM...

  4. linux? OS X? by joe+155 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    maybe they should say "upgrade to linux for the security" (or macOS X)... Vista seems to be offering very little in terms of features, and will offer little else in terms of security, partly people go for it because it's what most people use, and partly because M$ just doesn't take security seriously enough... they need to have a root and branch change of how the OS is designed to give a greater emphasis on security instead of useless visual tweaks.

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    1. Re:linux? OS X? by Kevbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think Apple is already doing this. They may not be running specific ads saying that they offer better security than Windows (at least, I have never seen any) but I am always hearing about how Mac never gets any viruses, exploits, etc from friends, reporters, Mac salesman...
      It may be underground marketing, but it is still marketing.

      --
      In Vino Veritas
    2. Re:linux? OS X? by Feyr · · Score: 1

      mac doesnt get viruses because it's not worth the time to write one

      but a mac is still more secure than windows. it has a proper (DEFAULT) security model for one. here's hoping vista will have it too.

      also, it doesn't run (as far as i remember) all of the useless services windows run, and there isn't as much badly designed backward compatibility cruft by default (SMB anyone?).

      im not saying you can't make macosx insecure, but at least it is by default... more than windows in any case (don't forget to patch)

    3. Re:linux? OS X? by undeadly · · Score: 0
      maybe they should say "upgrade to linux for the security" (or macOS X)...

      If security is a concern perhaps one should be a bit vary of Linux due to the big changes (ripping out core components) in the Linux kernel that happens quite often. Even deciding on a 802.11 stack seems difficult:

      It's high time that Linux get a serious effort going on a generic 802.11 stack, as it seems we are in danger of having every new wireless driver invent one if we do not.

      Linux put great emphasis on performance, not stability nor security, and this is well known. Offering a stable (i.e. usable) Linux kernel is up to the various distributions.

      "Security" is in vogue, but it appears to be mostly market speech with little, if any, content.

    4. Re:linux? OS X? by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative
      Vista seems to be offering very little in terms of features

      Lemme guess... you are basing that solely on what you've read on /.?

      Allow me to list a few features coming in Vista that I am looking forward to:

      • Application level audio control
      • Application specific remoting
      • Vastly improved networking stack (apparently superior to any other OS's)
      • Support for user mode drivers
      • New printer technology (way beyond postscript)
      • Pluggable crypto system


      Take a look at this MSN Spaces post which has some links to some videos on some of these improvements and more on Channel 9.
      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    5. Re:linux? OS X? by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think Apple is already doing this

      Nope. When I worked there, it was made very clear to us that Apple doesn't talk about security as a reason to switch. We emphasized ease of use, etc.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:linux? OS X? by undeadly · · Score: 1
      mac doesnt get viruses because it's not worth the time to write one

      Mostly because it's harder to write an effective virus for Mac OS X, along with availability of hardware to test assembly code. I wonder if we'll see more viruses popping up with Apple moving to Intel CPU's and machines that may run Windows.

      but a mac is still more secure than windows. it has a proper (DEFAULT) security model for one. here's hoping vista will have it too.

      Yeah, one of the reasons why there are so few virii targetting Mac OS X.

    7. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      While per-application audio control (I can't wait to be able to turn down my games and turn up teamspeak) and a new networking stack sound nice, remoting a single application has always been possible through netmeeting or with stuff like citrix. User mode drivers have been around for a while in other operating systems (libusb, libsane, various user mode filesystem drivers, etc). Not sure what a "pluggable crypto system" is but linux has had a good number of kernel crypto modules for a long time now for various purposes. As for Metro, the only thing it really brings to the table is XML. PDF already does everything Metro will, and will probably be much less encumbered than anything Microsoft releases as "open". (I also suspect that you could set per-application mixer levels in ALSA for any application not using OSS emulation, but it would be an undocumented hack and application dependent, rather than an OS feature)

    8. Re:linux? OS X? by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      Per application audio control? Like Detour on OS X? (All audio streams are per app but this lets you have fine control over them).

    9. Re:linux? OS X? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The new video subsystem is also going to allow you to zoom in on different applications at different levels-- no more squinting to read that 8-point text on your 1440x1280 15" laptop monitor!

      --
      Comment of the year
    10. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      New printer technology (way beyond postscript)

      Called XPS, and microsoft has already patented it. Its just move by microsoft to try to use their OS monopoly to take over everything involved with PostScript and PDF. This is one of those classic things microsoft does to try to destroy all competetition and anything that would prevent windows from the ONLY choice to do any sort of computing.

    11. Re:linux? OS X? by value_added · · Score: 1

      Allow me to list a few features coming in Vista that I am looking forward to:

      Vastly improved networking stack (apparently superior to any other OS's)

      LOL. I'd take the old stack if Windows included the networking tools typically found on any Linux system. Personally, if you want networking done right, I think you'll be using BSD.

      Sorry, but Microsoft's perennial attempts at reinventing Windows invites, at the very least, skepticism.

    12. Re:linux? OS X? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      And in which part did he say that feature would be innovative?

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    13. Re:linux? OS X? by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. I saw Allchin's latest Vista demo and I walked away for it confident that I will, under no uncertain terms, be buying a new laptop in early 2007 to run Vista on.

      There's lots of things in Vista that nobody has even started talking about yet, particularly in the area of mobility.

      - Laptops will start shipping with a secondary LCD screen that's accessible when the machine is closed. So you will be able to do things like checking the status of your e-mail, IM, stocks, weather, whatever -- without taking the machine out of sleep mode, spinning up the hard drives, etc.

      - Tablet PCs will have touch screen functionality in addition to just pen-based input. In addition, the handwriting recognition will "learn" from the files that Vista has indexed on your hard drive -- so if you're a doctor and you're always using words like "phenylketonuria," it will pick that up and recognize those words more readily.

      - As I mentioned in another post, Vista will ship with Windows Collaboration, a Groove-like networking feature that lets wireless users quickly form ad-hoc network and share files and even screen real estate in an easy way.

      - Microsoft will stop talking about power states like "Standby" and "Hibernate" when Vista ships. There will only be "on" or "off." When you hit the power button on your laptop, essentially it goes into Standby. Meanwhile it will be writing out a Hibernate file. After it figures out you won't be coming back, it sinks into Hibernate mode. But (and I'm a little unclear on this) even then it will still be sending a trickle of power to the memory only to keep the memory alive. The idea is that fast on and off will be a way of life and people won't be rebooting their computers all the time.

      - You will be able to associate with a new generation of LCD projectors wirelessly. No more showing up to a meeting and fumbling with monitor cables etc. Just find the projector and route PowerPoint through it.

      Outside of all that, WinFX should be a huge deal and there are a number of APIs that will be shipping in or be closely related to Vista that represent really serious innovations. I know the /. crowd hates to hear that word when talking about Microsoft, but I just call it how I see it.

      Vista is going to be a major, major upgrade... way more than anybody is giving it credit for yet and enough so that Apple should definitely be looking over its shoulder. Maybe Microsoft still won't be able to offer customers anything to compare with the iPod experience on a Mac, but business users in particular are going to be all over this.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    14. Re:linux? OS X? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Application level audio control

      Finally I'll be able to block annoying sounds from webpages and game installers!

      There's also one other feature Vista will have, and that is the next version of DirectX (or WGF, whatever they end up calling it). If you're a Windows gamer, upgrading will not be optional.

    15. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No really, the new microsoft OS is awesome. What, you don't take my word for it?? Here use these examples directly from M$ themselves!!

      Seriously man, having M$ tell me how great their new OS is going to be is what they are SUPPOSED to do. Now maybe if you can find something positive said about Vista by somebody else, maybe an actual BETA tester?

    16. Re:linux? OS X? by lebski · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Most of these features don't really sound like vista features - more like new hardware features.

      Laptops will start shipping with a secondary LCD screen that's accessible when the machine is closed. So you will be able to do things like checking the status of your e-mail, IM, stocks, weather, whatever -- without taking the machine out of sleep mode, spinning up the hard drives, etc.

      That sounds to me like something outside of the operating system otherwise there is no point.

      - Tablet PCs will have touch screen functionality in addition to just pen-based input. In addition, the handwriting recognition will "learn" from the files that Vista has indexed on your hard drive -- so if you're a doctor and you're always using words like "phenylketonuria," it will pick that up and recognize those words more readily.

      Touch screen is again a hardware improvement; indexing your files to pick out common words for recognition is very clever though.

      - As I mentioned in another post, Vista will ship with Windows Collaboration, a Groove-like networking feature that lets wireless users quickly form ad-hoc network and share files and even screen real estate in an easy way.

      This just scares me!

      - Microsoft will stop talking about power states like "Standby" and "Hibernate" when Vista ships. There will only be "on" or "off." When you hit the power button on your laptop, essentially it goes into Standby. Meanwhile it will be writing out a Hibernate file. After it figures out you won't be coming back, it sinks into Hibernate mode. But (and I'm a little unclear on this) even then it will still be sending a trickle of power to the memory only to keep the memory alive. The idea is that fast on and off will be a way of life and people won't be rebooting their computers all the time.

      Isn't that simply removing functionality? I'm sure it will be great for novice users but removing the ability to switch a computer off is not a 'feature' I'm all that keen on.

      - You will be able to associate with a new generation of LCD projectors wirelessly. No more showing up to a meeting and fumbling with monitor cables etc. Just find the projector and route PowerPoint through it.

      Again this seems more like a hardware improvement - and more of an improvement in LCD projectors than anything else.

      Sorry if this seems all very negative but the only positive feature I can see in Vista is the ability in non-admin accounts to enter the admin password to complete admin functions - such as installing software. Hopefully making them usable for the first time in windows.

    17. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you will be able to do things like checking the status of your e-mail, IM, stocks, weather, whatever -- without taking the machine out of sleep mode
      Woo hoo, so the battery will still run down to keep this running, meanwhile my phone will be by my side?

      Tablet PCs...
      Snore...

      Vista will ship with Windows Collaboration
      Security hole at three'o'clock, dive, dive

      people won't be rebooting their computers all the time
      Except to deal with the memory leaks, the patch reboots, the crashes

      No more showing up to a meeting and fumbling with monitor cables etc. Just find the projector and route PowerPoint through it.
      I see much more porn in your future....at large scale....in front of the CEO

      Face it, Vista is a service pack done up like a major release. Nothing that people really care about is going to be improved and most people are going to ignore this new profit raising opportunity for Bill. Unless Mickeysoft start remembering that people hate the way things are done, and are looking for a better replacement, Vista=end of an era.

    18. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I recently had a chance to play with the beta at cutc (canadian undergrad technical confrence) and to be frank, the tradeoffs for what you mention are not worth it for power users. That is to say, it is targeted at people who dont know much about computers and generally use them for mundane tasks (someone to whom application level audio control would be important).

      The perks I noticed were things like aeroglass (note: transparent windows are not as important if you have multiple desktops), vector based frame buffer (this is kinda cool, despite being done in direct x), "tabbed browsing" (which they attempted to claim as a new feature to ie, and were laughed at because the mozilla guy got a seminar in before the MS presentation), and a side pannel that had some web features (reminiscint of the highly unsuccessful active desktop). They also changed the start button to a windows logo and moved some colors around. It also seems that non superuser accounts are now not completely useless. If features like the improved network stack (i'm not exactly sure how you can significantly improve standard protocols, but sure), and new printer technology were mentioned, I either didnt notice when i used the beta, the MS guy didnt mention them in his presentation, or I wasnt paying atention (can you blame me?).

      That said, I did notice a few things that made me cringe. The first time I booted the beta I was prompted with "Error: Could not load operating system", so I moved to another machine. The first thing I did was disable the side bar, and turn off aeroglass. I then went into the system monitor and noticed a 550mb memory usage. Sure its a beta, and sure some of that memory is on the system page file, but half a gig without any apps? Is that reasonable? My system only has half a gig! One of the more embarasing moments for M$ during the presnetation occured when an audience member pointed out a potential bug. Vista has new parental controls that can be envoked between certain times, which require super user privilages to change. It seems however that changing the timezone is a non-su operation. The presenter didnt test the potential flaw during the presentation, and even if it was addressed, this raises an interesting question; they claim that their non-user accounts are finally usable, what did they have to expose to make them usable? OSes like linux are designed from the ground up, so if some feature early in the design phase require su privilages, then by necessity anything built on top of it will also require those privilages. Windows on the other hand is built from the top down, so its not always apparent what low level components should have su privilages...thats kinda scary...

      As a user there are two things that are important to me; my time and the things i produce on my time. If the system goes down for no apparent and unlogged reason, I'm pissed at it for wasting my time. If the system dies and looses all of my data I am even more pissed at it for wasting a lot of my time...that said, it seems that Windows Vista inherits the long honored M$ tradition of being a big waste of time, now with new features to help you waste even more time. Is your time worth flashy graphics and security in knowing that your just as screwed as everyone else who uses M$? If it is then by all means use Vista. Fortunately I have a little penguin that keeps me very productive and happy :)

      Note: To those concerned about GL support on Vista, 2.0+ support is still there provided you turn off aeroglass. Aeroglass supports 1.4-.

    19. Re:linux? OS X? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Sure, a lot of the stuff I mentioned ia hardware improvements. But what you're missing is that it's Microsoft driving the hardware improvements in many cases, and providing the OS software to make them run. That's more than even Apple does, and Apple owns its hardware.

      - A secondary LCD screen that offers limited, PDA-like functionality while the main OS is in Suspend. How would you do that with XP? Or Linux? It's not anything you can write in user mode.

      - Touch screens are hardware improvements. But Vista will bring software from Microsoft that makes it easier to use your finger to do things that would normally need a mouse. So you take your big old fat finger and stab the screen with it. A little circle appears, kind of like a radar screen, and it figures out which icon you meant to press. Current touchscreens can't do that. Rocket-science innovation? Maybe not, but Vista will have it and previous versions of Windows Tablet PC won't.

      - The Power modes thing, I'm still not totally sold on how it works. But I'm interested in seeing it.

      - The LCD projector thing -- that's not OS? How would you do that with your current-generation video driver?

      Yeah, sure, it's a way to sell people stuff. Allchin said as much. Microsoft is using this as an opportunity to drive profits into the entire PC hardware industry. They want you to want to buy new computers to run this OS and get all the whiz-bang features. But you know what? I'm pretty much sold. If half of it works by ship date it's going to be really cool.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    20. Re:linux? OS X? by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Umm... isn't the current Windows network stack based on the BSD one?

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    21. Re:linux? OS X? by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Microsoft's perennial attempts at reinventing Windows invites, at the very least, skepticism.

      You know, now that you mention it, I have to ask: if Windows is so great, why does it need to be reinvented (i.e. completely rewritten) every 3-4 years?

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    22. Re:linux? OS X? by ratboy666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I want to comment on some of the features you list:

      "New printer technology (way beyond postscript)"

      This is interesting. What could be "way beyond Postscript"? Postscript is a general purpose language, with rendering support. It has even been extended into a GUI (although that is irrelevant from the perspective of printing). By utilizing a common language for print rendering, different vendor OSs and systems can actually share printers. The reference implementation of Postscript is now (arguably) Ghostscript, which is Open Source. Postscript is also behind PDF technology.

      If there is a new rendering technology, how will it be incorporated into heterogenous network?

      "Support for user mode drivers"

      Is this a good thing? I know that there have been attempts at providing "user mode drivers" to Linux, and other OSs, but that is a REALLY BAD thing to do wrt security. Transitions from less trusted code to more trusted code are ok, because the more trusted code can check its inputs. The reverse transition is not ok -- simply because the code is less trusted.

      Of course the "user mode driver" may require signing, but then why not test it and put it back into kernel mode? The only other reason I can see for "user mode drivers" is that you want the driver code and data to participate in standard OS semantics (scheduling, swapping, etc.). Which may be a good reason to do it. But the security implications are immense: maybe front layer drivers only, that cannot do anything with the OS core or data, and where data only flows "user->user driver->kernel" -- you get the idea.

      Still, I was under the impression that Windows was a micro-kernel (in some sense), which is supposed to eliminate the need for this hack.

      "Application level audio control"

      Can you elaborate on this? I was under the impression that that was ALREADY a feature (or are you referring to OS control on the application audio, which is more interesting - specifically, the ability to route the audio output from an application to another application which can provide filtering: say, low-pass. Of course, this provides a security hole for the media, and so I doubt that this will be implemented).

      The other features will be welcome.

      Ratboy.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    23. Re:linux? OS X? by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny
      Just find the projector and route PowerPoint through it.

      But wouldn't someone then stab you to death for using Powerpoint? I don't see the advantage in being dead.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    24. Re:linux? OS X? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      How can you check the status of your email without spinning the hard drive? Will that just be stored in RAM?

    25. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like 10 years ago... http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/6/19/05641/7357

    26. Re:linux? OS X? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > Sure, a lot of the stuff I mentioned ia hardware improvements. But what you're missing is that it's Microsoft driving the hardware improvements in many cases, and providing the OS software to make them run. That's more than even Apple does, and Apple owns its hardware.

      Well, Apple has driven a lot of hardware improvements, but I won't get into that. I really doubt Microsoft is the only one who can come up with the not-so-bright idea of "Let's build a PDA into a laptop!" It's just that they're the only ones who think that's actually a good idea.

      > A secondary LCD screen that offers limited, PDA-like functionality while the main OS is in Suspend. How would you do that with XP? Or Linux? It's not anything you can write in user mode.

      It depends on how they're actually doing it. If (as I suspect) they're basically just being retarded and BUILDING A PDA INTO A LAPTOP, with a separate processor and everything, it shouldn't be too hard to just put Linux on there - after all, one of Linux's main strengths is its broad platform support. If this device is sharing information with the main processor, that complicates things a little, but given a known protocol for sharing data it should be pretty simple to write a Linux kernel module for doing this. Finally, it might even be possible to just leave the Windows CE crap thing they put on the "embedded PDA" in place and have Linux act like Windows toward it.

      > Touch screens are hardware improvements. But Vista will bring software from Microsoft that makes it easier to use your finger to do things that would normally need a mouse. So you take your big old fat finger and stab the screen with it. A little circle appears, kind of like a radar screen, and it figures out which icon you meant to press. Current touchscreens can't do that. Rocket-science innovation? Maybe not, but Vista will have it and previous versions of Windows Tablet PC won't.

      That sort of primitive intelligence sounds like something that can and should be done in the touchscreen firmware. It shouldn't have anything to do with the OS.

      > The Power modes thing, I'm still not totally sold on how it works. But I'm interested in seeing it.

      I could write a bash shell script to do something like that on my laptop. I haven't and won't because I like running my computer without a swap file, because I don't like bash shell scripting (I would write it in C++ instead :), and because I don't like the idea. When I say off, I want my computer to F*ING TURN OFF!

      > The LCD projector thing -- that's not OS? How would you do that with your current-generation video driver?

      How would you do it with a current-generation LCD projector? Also, if what you mean is "how would I forward a window to another device with current technology", I'd suggest you check out this website: http://www.x.org/

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    27. Re:linux? OS X? by Insensitive_Claudio · · Score: 2, Funny

      Little in features??? Did you see the screenshots???? Dude, they have frosted glass with semi-transparent drop-shadows!!! Are you out of your mind!!!! Geez!!!

    28. Re:linux? OS X? by pherthyl · · Score: 2, Informative

      *sigh*
      Why does everyone continue to buy into this BS? Point sizes have absolutely nothing to do with your screen resolution if your display is set up correctly. An 8pt font should be the same size whether your res is 1024 or 1600x1200. If you're having trouble reading text on a high res screen, do this: on windows:
      display properties, settings, advanced, then choose custom setting and adjust the ruler until the distance displayed is correct. Reboot.
      On Linux, set the DisplaySize (or something like that, I forget) in xorg.conf

    29. Re:linux? OS X? by spitzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      - A secondary LCD screen that offers limited, PDA-like functionality while the main OS is in Suspend. How would you do that with XP? Or Linux? It's not anything you can write in user mode.

      What the hell are you talking about. That LCD would be a *second screen*. Windows as-is already supports multiple screens, so add a driver for the LCD! I don't consider that a change to the OS. A slight change so that the user can make a program go to that screen without dragging it is, I guess, a change to the OS, but hardly a huge addition. Of course I think MS has gone and made yet another api, totally failing to realize that the existing one was just fine. That is why you seem confused into thinking supporting this new screen is some new OS feature. Sigh.

      A little circle appears, kind of like a radar screen, and it figures out which icon you meant to press. Current touchscreens can't do that.

      WTF? Last I looked current touchscreens can draw anything they want on it. So I guess they improved the driver, but I suspect they could have put this into XP just as easily.

      Power modes

      This I would say *is* a feature of Vista as it probably touches lots of different parts of it. It is not a driver like the above two.

      The LCD projector thing -- that's not OS?

      Um, NO! The LCD projector thing is "hardware in the projector to pick up the wireless signal!" Are you claiming that this could not be done with existing Windows if a hardware manufacturer built such a device?

      user-mode drivers

      This certainly is a big improvement to the OS. However what I fail to realize is why you thought various drivers were improvements to the OS.

      Now where are the real innovations: get rid of text/binary mode in the files!! How about a unified file name space so that open() and readdir() can find everything, like Plan9 had twenty f**king years ago (Linux also sucks in this area, but not as bad as Windows, where you cannot even list the disks without a special api).

    30. Re:linux? OS X? by greengrass · · Score: 1

      ratboy666 wrote: "This is interesting. What could be "way beyond Postscript"?

      You will be able to get test that BLINKS!

      --
      The MS "no sue/patent deal" with Novell/Xandros is like the Pope blessing a Jewish wedding
    31. Re:linux? OS X? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Try that, and see how many applications break. Either they have text overrunning dialog boxes, or the button captions don't fit in the buttons.

      Seriously. That's a great solution, IN THEORY, but in reality it stinks.

      --
      Comment of the year
    32. Re:linux? OS X? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but one could say because they like making progress.

    33. Re:linux? OS X? by The_Cheese_Stands_Al · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Laptops will start shipping with a secondary LCD screen that's accessible when the machine is closed. So you will be able to do things like checking the status of your e-mail, IM, stocks, weather, whatever -- without taking the machine out of sleep mode, spinning up the hard drives, etc.
      What?? - Explain to me how one is to interact with a machine in sleep mode. Either A) M$ is only turning off the primary LCD, Touchpad, Keyboard, etc. off and calling it "sleep mode," OR B) The machine continuously displays info on the second LCD. With A - That's a sucky sleep mode, and with B - that would drain power all the time, which is even worse.

      Tablet PCs will have touch screen functionality in addition to just pen-based input. In addition, the handwriting recognition will "learn" from the files that Vista has indexed on your hard drive -- so if you're a doctor and you're always using words like "phenylketonuria," it will pick that up and recognize those words more readily.
      Ummm... I thought that the whole point of a tablet PC was that it had touch screen functionality. The second idea is good, although rather old. ANY handwriting recognition software uses previous recognition data if there is any room for data storage at all.

      As I mentioned in another post, Vista will ship with Windows Collaboration, a Groove-like networking feature that lets wireless users quickly form ad-hoc network and share files and even screen real estate in an easy way.
      First off, ad-hoc wireless networking is not new in any sense of the word. File sharing protocols (zero configuration, no less) have been around for a while. Remote Desktop viewing/controlling applications are both old ideas that have been implemented--even on Windows.

      Microsoft will stop talking about power states like "Standby" and "Hibernate" when Vista ships. There will only be "on" or "off." When you hit the power button on your laptop, essentially it goes into Standby. Meanwhile it will be writing out a Hibernate file. After it figures out you won't be coming back, it sinks into Hibernate mode. But (and I'm a little unclear on this) even then it will still be sending a trickle of power to the memory only to keep the memory alive. The idea is that fast on and off will be a way of life and people won't be rebooting their computers all the time.
      "Standby" and "Hibernate" are not new to Windows either. Most laptops have this feature that activates (wait for it....) when you close the lid. Microsoft's "Fast on" sounds more like a "wakeup" than anything else. [given the confused explanation of this "feature", it's hard to say exactly what they mean]. The other point about this "feature" is the lack of an ability to turn off the laptop with the "off" button.

      You will be able to associate with a new generation of LCD projectors wirelessly. No more showing up to a meeting and fumbling with monitor cables etc. Just find the projector and route PowerPoint through it.
      Apparently Microsoft has managed to coordinate a zeroconf wireless LCD projector standard without anyone knowing--or is this simply support for bluetooth screens.

      Vista is going to be a major, major upgrade... way more than anybody is giving it credit for yet and enough so that Apple should definitely be looking over its shoulder. Maybe Microsoft still won't be able to offer customers anything to compare with the iPod experience on a Mac, but business users in particular are going to be all over this.
      On the iPod note -- did you miss Microsoft's press release about their "iPod killer" this week (or was it last week)? As to the "Apple should be looking over its' shoulder," please see the definitions of FUD and vaporware, as that is all that your argument seems to be based on.

    34. Re:linux? OS X? by 6*7 · · Score: 1

      "- Laptops will start shipping with a secondary LCD screen that's accessible when the machine is closed. So you will be able to do things like checking the status of your e-mail, IM, stocks, weather, whatever -- without taking the machine out of sleep mode, spinning up the hard drives, etc."

      So Vista will essentially do in 2007 what any modern cell phone could do last year. And a cell is even small enough to carry around anywhere and is always on anyway.

    35. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mac doesnt get viruses because it's not worth the time to write one

      How about Apache? It has 70% of the web server marketshare vs 20% for IIS. Why don't more exploits exist for it?

    36. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't someone then stab you to death for using Powerpoint? I don't see the advantage in being dead.

      Really? I see a lot of advantage in Powerpoint users being dead.

    37. Re:linux? OS X? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I would like to see the horse drawn wagon that carries batteries for a wireless transciever capable of dumping full resolution digital video signals over the air. unlike television video a projector working as a monitor has to use lossless compression only or applications will become unusable.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    38. Re:linux? OS X? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      If there is a new rendering technology, how will it be incorporated into heterogenous network?

      It won't, that is the point.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    39. Re:linux? OS X? by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      What the hell are you talking about. That LCD would be a *second screen*. Windows as-is already supports multiple screens, so add a driver for the LCD!
      Boy, really not reading much today. The second screen works while the laptop is in suspend. I'm still waiting for you to explain how that's done without OS modifications.
      WTF? Last I looked current touchscreens can draw anything they want on it. So I guess they improved the driver, but I suspect they could have put this into XP just as easily.
      I'm sure they could have. But whaddaya know ... they didn't.
      Um, NO! The LCD projector thing is "hardware in the projector to pick up the wireless signal!" Are you claiming that this could not be done with existing Windows if a hardware manufacturer built such a device?
      You'd neeed the equivalent of a VNC client in the projector or something, and I don't think that's how they're doing it.

      But hey, what's your point, anyway? Even if you're right and every single one of these things could have been done in XP (and I don't agree that they could have been) ... they weren't. Hence, a reason to upgrade to Vista.

      I mean, Jesus Christ, people ... damned if you do and damned if you don't. I tell you about some new features, you say those features should have been in XP. I say but they're going to be in Vista, you tell me Vista has no new features. Talk about a snake chasing its own tail! One thing's for sure: nothing I mentioned is present in either Linux or Mac OS X out of the box. Is that what's really galling you?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    40. Re:linux? OS X? by Kaali · · Score: 1
      Boy, really not reading much today. The second screen works while the laptop is in suspend. I'm still waiting for you to explain how that's done without OS modifications.
      I have not read much about Windows Vista features, but i'll take a shot on this. If the laptop, the main processor etc. is on suspend, then it does not matter what OS is running there as the processor does not get power to work with. If the underlying operating system does work, then the suspend mode is some kind of soft-suspend, meaning that it's just running on low-power which could most propably be used on every OS just by throttling the processor etc.

      I would guess this feature is implemented by having a low power consumption processor with a bit of memory and a LCD (aka. a PDA) running on the laptop while the main components are in the suspend mode. And the information is synced from the main OS to the PDA when going to the suspend, but not updated till the computer wakes up; well not updated with information from the OS, might update stuff from the internet by getting some network info from the OS going in to the suspension and using that.

      So in, any of these hypotheses, it could be done in user mode.


      Still, sure i'm glad that Microsoft is innovating, most of the best innovations have been simple stuff that everyone could have implemented. I really hope that Windows Vista is going to be the best Windows operating system, as sadly we seem to be stuck on that platform for many things. I myself would like to see a collabrative effort of companies and inviduals to create the perfect global operating system that would be openfree and beerfree. One can wish.
    41. Re:linux? OS X? by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

      On windows my experience is that if you do that then all kinds of apps draw incorrectly with text drawing outside buttons, etc etc. Under linux I have not even had to set the displaysize in a year or so. It figures it out on its one and I can take an 8pt font and put a ruler up to the screen and check it. I use kde as my desktop and have had no problems of any kind with it running under all kinds of dpi settings. It seems like windows is hard pixel coded but kde/qt at least seems to be resolution independent.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    42. Re:linux? OS X? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Congratulations, you've discovered several of the little men behind the curtains. In particular, the "new printer technology" is in order to break CUPS and Samba based compatibility Windows printing. I'm sure they'll "embrace and extend" parts of them, but I'm also convinced they'll deliberately make them incompatible with existing tools in the process.

      Second, the "user mode drivers" have a rather obvious use: coupled with the plans for "trusted computing" style authentication of software, they provide a robust means for digital rights management of both software and hardware. The plan seems to be to require authenticated software to access CD and DVD readers and burners. And by integrating it in at the trusted computing driver level, the drives can be designed so that they cannot be used without the vendor's signed software, disabling all access to the content except with the vendor's approved software.

      It's a logical consequence of the "trusted computing" approach to software, and you'd better believe that it's being pushed for if not already directly integrated into Vista.

    43. Re:linux? OS X? by demon · · Score: 1

      Funny how everyone else manages to affect progress on their OS, without a complete ground-up rewrite of major subsystems every few years.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    44. Re:linux? OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, if you are going to shill, do a better job. New something, improved something, blah, blah...

    45. Re:linux? OS X? by Mancat · · Score: 1

      Which tools? Vista with SUA provides the majority of standard Unix networking tools.

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    46. Re:linux? OS X? by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Yes but Apache runs on many more platforms than IIS so it's harder to find exploits that can reliably hit a large percentage of servers.

      IIS is the danger of monoculture at its finest.

    47. Re:linux? OS X? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      My god did you even read? I fully admit that the power modes and user-mode drivers *are* improvements to the OS. I was just trying to differentiate between hype and the real thing, something you seem incapable of.

      I can guarantee you that if Linux added support for this LCD screen or the remote projectors (something it cannot do without the hardware to test it on) then it will NOT be called Linux 3.0, but still be 2.6. It is NOT a new OS!

    48. Re:linux? OS X? by pherthyl · · Score: 1

      Try that, and see how many applications break

      So far, none.

    49. Re:linux? OS X? by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      display properties, settings, advanced, then choose custom setting and adjust the ruler until the distance displayed is correct. Reboot. On Linux, set the DisplaySize (or something like that, I forget) in xorg.conf

      And then find out your display looks bad because you're no longer running at the native resolution of the screen. Not that important for CRTs, critical for flat panels.

    50. Re:linux? OS X? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If email is stored on an imap/pop server, you won't need to spin the drives. After all, the poster did say "check your email" which generally implies checking for/reading new mail, not necessarily searching through all your old mail.

  5. microsoft... by tkny · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    all your base are belong to us!

  6. quote? by Prong_Thunder · · Score: 5, Funny

    "nice computer you got here... be a shame if it crashed...."

  7. People actually pay for articles like this by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is all about anti-Microsoft masturbatory geekspasms, right? Let the games begin:

    Yeah, Winblows security? They haven't reimplemented enough of Unix to be secure yet.
      - or -
    Sure, it's secure - it can't be pwned when the new RSOD feature is active.

    Well, I've shot my wad.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    1. Re:People actually pay for articles like this by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of the quality assurance guys at work claims to receive "bugasms" when he finds a particularly juicy one.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:People actually pay for articles like this by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "One of the quality assurance guys at work claims to receive "bugasms" when he finds a particularly juicy one."

      I hope your company has great disability coverage, because if he's QA'ing Windows apps, that poor boy's going to go blind before long. 8^)

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  8. Secure? by SpasticWeasel · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFA: "People Near Me" feature, which searches over a Wi-Fi connection for other Vista users nearby and then sets up a peer-to-peer network with them. Yeah, that sounds pretty secure. Same old Microsoft.

    --
    No sooner do I get over one, then you put a better one right next to me. Bastards.
    1. Re:Secure? by ajwitte · · Score: 1

      Oh, like this?
      Already available for Mac OS X and Windows 2k/XP.
      I bet there's an implementation for your free *nix of choice as well.

      --
      chown -R us ~you/base
    2. Re:Secure? by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If this is the Windows Collaboration feature they're talking about, then it doesn't automatically connect everybody. You can invite the people you choose. And it's not a peer to peer filesharing network or even a standard Windows network. It's a Groove-like system that allows you to share files and screen real estate among the connected peers. So if you're showing a presentation from your laptop, you can let me connect to your projector using your laptop over the network and show my presentation from my hard drive, using your screen in a sense. I can also push the same file to everybody in the ad hoc "network" so that they can view it. Optionally I can also send them a copy of the file, but I don't have to... that kind of thing. It's actually pretty neat.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:Secure? by cirisme · · Score: 1

      Bonjour just provides the framework for advertising services. And in OS X, file sharing is off by default so there's nothing in that regards for bonjour to advertise. Hopefully Vista does the same thing, but I don't know.

    4. Re:Secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that sounds pretty secure.

      Are you being sarcastic because your Wi-Fi network broadcasts its SSID, is unencrypted, and doesn't screen out any MAC that isn't registered with the access point?

      Or are you being sarcastic because you regularly hop on other people's Wi-Fi networks, configured as above, at your leisure?

      Or are you being sarcastic because you've never configured a peer-to-peer program to use an isolated subdirectory and never set the permissions on that directory to forbid execution of the content by anyone?

      Just curious. I'm especially curious about the last point, which Microsoft might have chosen as a default setting, and which would negate your sniping.

    5. Re:Secure? by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      People Near Me" feature, which searches over a Wi-Fi connection for other Vista users nearby and then sets up a peer-to-peer network with them
      That's funny. Go to Starbucks, and your OS finds you a date.
      You better look around the room first, before you turn your laptop on.

      --
      Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
    6. Re:Secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it doesn't automatically connect everybody. You can invite the people you choose

      I certainly look forward to inviting my boss right in the middle of his power point presentation in front of everybody. With NT/2000 administrator messages (or whatever they're called), he turned them off after the first time this sort of thing happened. But he never got to miss those - with this new thing, he might and I wonder whether he'll remember to turn it on and off according to the situation.

    7. Re:Secure? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      I couldn't believe it when I read about that "people near me" feature. They couldn't even make it to the second paragraph before catastrophically demonstrating that MS continues to have no clue about security.

    8. Re:Secure? by wickedmm · · Score: 1

      Lets see how would we do this with Linux... Go to your laptop, ssh -X wicked@mylaptop.net, ooffice2 &. Voila!

      --
      Don't be a Hem, find some new cheese.
  9. WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Slashdot, who loves to post taglines of "Is this the end of the Internet?" or "Is Linux dead?" or "Microsoft security is going to destroy the world" now posts something that makes fun of Microsoft using security to sell their product?

    Guys, make up your mind. It's very clear that no matter what Microsoft does, you guys are against it, even if they start embracing Linux. I mean, what would Slashdot do if Microsoft became pro-Linux? They would have no one to demonize... maybe they'll start hating Linux too?

    1. Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by clevershark · · Score: 1

      Well, this thread is about the silliness of Microsoft claiming "greater security" when they have a poor track record on this issue.

      I'm glad I could clear that up for ya.

      --

      My sig is too lon

    2. Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by yoprst · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the most profound effect would be that many of them actually will start using Linux.

    3. Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by HalAtWork · · Score: 1
      Slashdot, who loves to post taglines of "Is this the end of the Internet?" or "Is Linux dead?" or "Microsoft security is going to destroy the world" now posts something that makes fun of Microsoft using security to sell their product?

      Well if MS's idea of security could leave the world open to destruction, then why would they use it as a selling point again? Look at it this way, all versions of Windows thus far have had serious security issues that have lost people lots of money and time.

      --
      Twinstiq, game news
    4. Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me it's just banter :-) Microsoft bashing's justa bit of fun. Anyone taking it too seriously (whether or not their pro or anti-microsoft) need to go get some perspective.

    5. Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...makes fun of Microsoft using security to sell their product?

      We're not making fun of anyone who uses security to sell their product,
      we're making fun of those who use 'security' as a buzzword to market their insecure crap.

      There is a difference.

    6. Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, make up your mind. It's very clear that no matter what Microsoft does, you guys are against it, even if they start embracing Linux. I mean, what would Slashdot do if Microsoft became pro-Linux? They would have no one to demonize... maybe they'll start hating Linux too?

      Micro$oft will never become pro Linux, because Micro$oft is obsessive about control, and GNU/Linux is all about freedom - GPL'd freedom, and of course freedom from all those thousands of viruses.

      Micro$oft may end up developing software that runs on Linux, but it will hate doing so because it has a morbid fear of:

      1. all things truly open to scrutiny and genuine public discussion,
      2. all things in any way administered by a genuine standards body, and
      3. all things overseen by an organisation that has Freedom of software as its primary goal, or developed by an open co-operative process for the benefit of all.

      When faced with these things, Micro$oft would rather flee in the other direction than stand and contribute. The debate surrounding Micro$oft's non-implementation and use of the Open Document standard, coupled with with Micro$oft's extreme but failed tactics in Massachusetts is a classic example.

    7. Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? by HolyCoitus · · Score: 1

      I just took a crap. I'll sell it to you for 20 bucks to use as an air freshener.

      --
      That's scary.
  10. Or we will shoot this dog by HeavyMS · · Score: 5, Funny

    The link to rule them all :
    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Windowsvistamar keting.jpg

    1. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by plopez · · Score: 1

      National Lampoon had a magazine cover like this in the 70's, the caption, IIRC, was 'Buy this magazine or we shoot this dog'.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they had another one with a girls lips and....something on them, and the caption "we did it!"

    3. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Yes. *claps* That was the joke.

      Anything else that's stunningly obvious for us? Anything juicy about bears or the Pope that we might already know about?

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    4. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I have a cat named Linus Torvalds. What are the odds of this ad making me buy Windows Vista? :)

    5. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Who is "us"? Slashdot readers? I was less than one year old in the 70s and I'm not American, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    6. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by plopez · · Score: 1

      not to mention stunningly unoriginal....

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    7. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by Ixitar · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as a sensitive clod?

    8. Re:Or we will shoot this dog by nigel_q · · Score: 1

      That dog isn't NEARLY cute enough to make me want to buy Vista... They should have gone with a puppy or something!

  11. Upgrade! by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or we'll send Balmer around with this chair...

    --
    Silly rabbit
    1. Re:Upgrade! by lebski · · Score: 1

      Honest to god. One more Ballmer joke and I start killing people.

    2. Re:Upgrade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You start fucking killing them.

    3. Re:Upgrade! by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Honest to god. One more Ballmer joke and I start killing people.

      I didn't know Ballmer was a slashdotter.

  12. NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for security by no_pets · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If Vista is really serious about security it will make users login by default into a non-admin account. This will not be a selling point as most users hate having to login. Or at least has been my professional experience.

    --
    "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
  13. Lost trust by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm all for upgrading things to newer versions to enhance security. Secure by design should be the default, and if someone fessed up and said, "Hey, we fucked up last time, but we got it right this time", and could be trusted, then it wouldn't be extortionist of them to try this.

    But we've all seen how Trustworthy Computing didn't really change things. New products came through that obviously weren't vetted, and plenty of legacy problems remained. I don't know who's really going to buy Vista because they'll believe the security "threat" perpetuated by MS.

    --
    500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
    1. Re:Lost trust by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if someone fessed up and said, "Hey, we fucked up last time, but we got it right this time", and could be trusted

      The problem isn't that no one says this, it's that they've been saying it about every version since Windows 95. They constantly spread FUD about using their old versions so that people will upgrade.

      MS aren't the only people guilty of this though. Every try to ask for help on a slightly older version of an open source application? You'll most likely get 10 people bashing you for running a version that came out more than 2 months ago.

      And the same was true of Mac users. OS 9 was the best thing since sliced bread if you were to listen to the Mac users at the time. A few months after OS X came out and they got over the intial cognitive dissonance, all you could hear about was how much OS 9 sucked from mac users.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Lost trust by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      I've not seen Microsoft admit fault with previous versions, they just say that the new ones are better. There's no contrition. And I *did* specify "and be trusted".

      That said, XP *has* been considerably more stable than 9x, as they said it would be...

      --
      500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
    3. Re:Lost trust by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Secure by design should be the default, and if someone fessed up and said, "Hey, we fucked up last time, but we got
      > it right this time", and could be trusted, then it wouldn't be extortionist of them to try this.

      Except they always say that, and mean it. Six months to a year from a new release Microsoft and their media mouthpieces all admit the current version is a turd, but this upcoming version will finally be THE ONE. And everyone lets them get away with it, even when they contradict themselves.

      DOS is shit, you need this new OS/2 thing we are doing with IBM.

      Whups, no DOS is OK, so long as it is the base for this New & Improved Windows 3.0 we are pushing instead, because we decided IBM was a bunch of rat bastards.

      Nah, we were right he first time, DOS is an old buggy mess and you should buy Windows NT.

      Oh, you guys ain't going for that huh. Well then, what you need is this NEW 32bit Windows 95 that is more compatible with (hell it still squats on) DOS so your existing codebase will still work.

      Ok, Windows 95 sucked pretty hard, even after several service releases. But if you will just trust us and buy this new Windows 98 it will fix all of the problems you are having.

      Alright, shaddup already, 98 also was a roach motel, so here (at a very attractive upgrade price) is Second Edition to finally give you computing nirvana.

      You didn't think we were going to throw away years of work on NT now did ya? So follow me on this, business should ditch that nasty old Win98 and go to this new shiny Windows 2000, which is that NT stuff you hated but now with the spiffy Windows 98 look. Everyone else should buy Windows ME, which is Windows 98SE minux some stuff to start driving developers to a win32 only world.

      Well ME really blew goats didn't it, must be the worst release yet. Bleh! So everybody step right up and buy XP, it sucks far less than ME. What? You business types actually LIKE Win2K. Well that will teache us to forget to add in some fatal flaws to a release. Well here is Software Assurance to force you to upgrade. (We hope.)

      And now we come to today. XP is a security nightmare, start saving up to buy a new Vista powered PC.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    4. Re:Lost trust by pilkul · · Score: 1

      That gave me a good laugh, thanks.

  14. Re:Slow news day by OmegaBlac · · Score: 2

    This is slashdot after all; if you can't get dirt on em then make it up. ;)

  15. It could get worse? by kamikaze2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

    'I'd hate to see something bad happen to your PC'

    Jeez, if it's alredy got windows on it, how much worse can it possibly get?? *ducks*

    1. Re:It could get worse? by pvt_medic · · Score: 2, Funny

      you guys are all so critical Microsoft products dont suck, they are now making vacuum cleaners.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    2. Re:It could get worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Jeez, if it's alredy got windows on it, how much worse can it possibly get??
      > *ducks*

      Ducks? Is that all you've got?

      You can be a lot worse off than ducks. *bears*

      -- Steven Cobert

    3. Re:It could get worse? by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Jeez, if it's alredy got windows on it, how much worse can it possibly get?? *ducks*

      There could be new version of Internet Explorer.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  16. Vista will not be secure by Tufriast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are already holes in Vista that were revealed with Microsoft's latest patch. If they keep rehashing a lot of the same coding mistakes, then there is no stopping threats. Vista will flop, and be just as buggy as the current version of Windows, and if you do not buy a new computer - well, we all remember Windows ME.
    So, try out MacOS X, or Mepis Linux.

    --
    Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
    1. Re:Vista will not be secure by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      If they keep rehashing a lot of the same coding mistakes, then there is no stopping threats. Vista will flop ...

      Just like XP flopped?

    2. Re:Vista will not be secure by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Sure, XP is the now the most popular Windows, 4 years after its release, but it was a flop compared to the previous releases (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,76724,0 0.asp). Businesses are happy with Windows 2000. It took XP two years to overcome 2000 in the W3Schools browser statistics, and 2000 is still pretty strong at 13%. XP is most popular today because it comes preinstalled on new systems, and all the older systems are gradually dying of hardware failures or obsoletion.

    3. Re:Vista will not be secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was ordering my new laptop a few months ago (from a manufacturer whose name rhymes with "Hell"), I had a "choice" of Windows XP Home, Pro, or Media Center.

      I called in, and asked if I could chose not to buy an OS... Guess what? After jumping through hoops, I was told I COULD decline to purchase that OS, by paying EXTRA to REMOVE it. I said fudge it, and bought a machine from HP.

      Herein lies the reason for so-called "success" of WinXP.

      By the same token logic, serial rapists' penises could be quite "successful", but such is not the success that should be welcomed by any reasonable person.

  17. Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bin Laden is gonna getch ya - if you don't update.

  18. The jokes keep on coming. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Buy Vista... or someone might throw a chair at you.

    In Soviet Russa, Windows Vista pays you protection money

    Take your pick folks, I'll be here till Sunday.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:The jokes keep on coming. by jcupitt65 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Upgrade to Windows Vista because, thanks to XP product activation, we know where you live.

    2. Re:The jokes keep on coming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russa, Windows Vista pays you protection money
      I believe you meant:

      In soviet Russia, Microsoft buys YOU!

    3. Re:The jokes keep on coming. by CyborgWarrior · · Score: 1

      Well I'm glad I'm using a cracked version then.... O:-)

      (noooooo, please don't turn my UID over to microsoft!!!)

      --
      If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
  19. Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, only three more negative MS article before you reach your daily quota.

    Not to say I wouldn't like to see more than 5, so keep up the good work!

  20. I knew it! by Ardeocalidus · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as I don't find my computer's monitor in my bed, I'm not upgrading.

    1. Re:I knew it! by Galt_Drakor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then just install a unix variant. They don't mind running headless!

  21. Talking out of both sides of his mouth by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Even if they are not into home entertainment or in any of the specialty areas, they are just going to feel safer and more secure by using it."

    "...[Alchin] demonstrated a collaboration tool that uses a "People Near Me" feature, which searches over a Wi-Fi connection for other Vista users nearby and then sets up a peer-to-peer network with them."

    Your computer must be more secure -- it can automatically network wirelessly with other computers to share your files.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Talking out of both sides of his mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, and this might be shocking to think, you can disable that feature? Oh god user control over features, head for the hills!

  22. The problem is implementation rather than design by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Start shipping installs secured from the start. Require an admin/install user account for new system wide applications, sandbox user installed software in their home directory/profile. Users then don't trash everything when they fubar their profile or homedir. Windows has all the necessary features to do it, It's had them since the first versions of NT.

    Microsoft frankly can't be arsed and there's no profit in a secured system when they can instead continually be selling you upgrades as security fixes.

    It isn't rocket science, it's just segregation of responsibility. Unix has been doing it for 30 years. No wait, it must be closer to 35 now.

    --
    Deleted
  23. Its your choice by gsfprez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no one on earth is forcing an IT, CIO, homemaker, graphic artist, gamer or anyone else to HAVE TO BUY Micro Soft's shit.

    I have for the last two years officially told people - i cannot and will not help you if you are running Windows. I am too busy accomplishing things (photography, videographic analysis) to be bothered with tools that do not just work. I don't care that there are millions of Windows viruses, i don't care if your webpage doens't work with anything but IE and Active X, i just have stopped caring.

    I am getting older - i have a family, and i want to create and do things which are special, and i no longer have the time nor the incination to either myself, or have to deal with others who's job it is to spend all day and night defending computers from themselves. I am the architect who doesn't want to deal with the knock-off cheap Chinese crap powertools and hear all the workers bitch about them, or hear about the foreman that tells me i have to keep taking apart all the power tools and putting them back together again... build the fscking house - go get the tools that WORK - and pay more for them if you have to.

    The simple fact is - its totally irrelevant to me if a Mac costs $1000 or $3000. If it does what i need - and prevents me from having to fix my tool all day long - the $3000 tool will be far more vaulable in just a week or two. Theoretical, imaginary, or otherwise fantasmic notions that Macs are just as insecure as Windows are irrelevant to me - i work today, and i work now. (well, its saturday, i'm only working a few hours today).

    But the flip side of that is - i no longer give a shit what anyone uses. I don't care. Do not bother me or hassle me or get in my way if you can't keep up with me. My friends and family no longer bother me - i bought my family Mac minis, and my friends are all switching.

    The world uses Windows?? I'm fscking George Bush of the Mac - i don't give a shit if every person on earth said "jump off this cliff, its the industry standard"

    i'm not a lemming - i have things to get done. Whatever you want to do is fine with me, you're out of my "circle of give a shit".

    You run Windows. I'm getting things done.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    1. Re:Its your choice by che.kai-jei · · Score: 1

      wow . you really took the tony soprano crack at the end of the fine article summary and ran with it.

      analyze this!

    2. Re:Its your choice by Anonymous+Poodle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should trademark "circle of give a shit" and "You run Windows--I'm getting things done." and sell them back to Apple. Seriously.

      I'm in the same boat--After spending 20+years eating, sleeping and breathing computers, and acting as the reisident expert in my family/circle of friends/global village/whatever, I no longer support/advise/provide a shoulder to cry on for any one I know who uses a PC. I switched as many family members as possible over to iMacs, and so I now no longer get those late night calls (my screen is blue, what do I do?).

      I now claim total ignorance of all things PC, so when someone asks me "is this $399 laptop from Costco a good computer?", I tell them to buy a Mac, 'cause it's all I know. I also tell them to make sure they buy an extended warranty , because they will Sure Need It.

      I view the legions of unofficial Windows Support Staff--your Brother-in -law, neighbor, whoever--as part of the hidden cost of running crappy software.

    3. Re:Its your choice by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I'm with this attitude (but still on Windows, but looking at alternatives).

      I tell people to deal with certain mail order suppliers because a) they know what they are talking about and b) if something goes wrong, they are good at rectifying it.

      The answer I get back is: "but they cost more!". Thing is, I don't care. I want it to work. Not working costs me a lot more than a small premium for service/parts.

    4. Re:Its your choice by vga_init · · Score: 1
      Yes, there are a lot of us that are in the same boat as you are. I'm not a Mac user probably because I can't afford it, but also because I'm married to unix. I use linux on the desktop, but when people I know bother me about what kind of computer they should buy, I just tell them to get an Apple computer. Usually they respond with disgust, which then causes me to taunt them, but at least they don't ask me again for purchasing advice. The sad part is that, for most people that ask, the advice I give is actually the best.

      Nobody asks me to fix their computer problems anymore because I just tell them that I don't use Windows.

    5. Re:Its your choice by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      vga, I'm in a similar boat, and now over the last couple years I've switched maybe a dozen friends and family to Mac, which I've used 'forever', or to be more precise, since the Mac 512k, BUT...

      The single one program (I'm not a programmer) that I MUST USE, is ONLY available on Windows XP, and the next upgrade will be Vista (no surprise). In fact, the next 2 applications in line to take the place of that program are also only on Windows, with

      ALL of the mainstream moderate priced 3D software companies having been seduced by Bill Gates' pledge of 'delivering' and industrial strength platform, has LIMITED user company's choices, and I'll bet one of these companies defects and starts to offer UNIX again (where they all used to be, and some still are, for their higher priced alternatives, except SolidWorks, which I use, because it is so productive).

      3D solids CAD used to design most modern consumer, medical and industrial product is now a 'norm'. For most smallish-midish companies, SolidWorks, ProE/WildFire, Unigraphics & others run on Windows only (or their lower cost bretheren do), for reasons of programming cost, I assume.

      I look forward to the day when there is an 'option out' of Unix, hopefully on the Mac. Hardware cost is NOT the issue. CAD + optional software for a single seat (on my Dell M60 @ $4500) costs me nearly $20k. The hardware is not the issue. Bill Gates has sold both users and software developers a "Bill of Gates, er, God, er Goods". Gates hoodwinked damn near EVERYONE back in the early 90s and we are all still paying the price.

      I almost gag every time I see the guy stand up with a straight face and talk about Windows. All I can think of watching Bill is the old Carny, who would stand up on his orange crate and spew a fantastic, half way believable tale of his super vitamins he sold, knowing as an 8 year old kid that I was watching a con man. Sad thing is, when Bill becomes honest (giving him credit that he could), I will never be able to change my opinion of him. "Once burned...."

    6. Re:Its your choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have for the last two years officially told people - i cannot and will not help you if you are running Windows. I am too busy accomplishing things (photography, videographic analysis) to be bothered with tools that do not just work. I don't care that there are millions of Windows viruses, i don't care if your webpage doens't work with anything but IE and Active X, i just have stopped caring.

      Wow, just wow.

      Do you have one of those clever signs in your driveway which says, "Ford/Chevy/Dodge parking only."

      Seriously, it takes a planetary sized ego to make yourself the centre of everyone else's computing universe the way you think you have. You're probably the only one who has ever even noticed your choice in using brand a over brand b. Perhaps you just hang around like a spider in a web waiting for some hapless soul to talk to you about computers, so you can righteously crawl over, wrap them in silk, and consume them with tales of how much you won't help them, and get so much done.

    7. Re:Its your choice by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you've got AutoCAD, WoodWorks Sizer, RAM SBeam and RAMSS, AdvanSE and RetainPro working seamlessly and with automatic updates on your non-XP OS of choice.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:Its your choice by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "I tell them to buy a Mac, 'cause it's all I know. I also tell them to make sure they buy an extended warranty , because they will Sure Need It."

      im confused.. you want people to buy a reliable computer, but then you say if they buy a mac they "sure will need" the extended warranty?

      do you work for best buy?

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    9. Re:Its your choice by Generic+Guy · · Score: 1

      Amusing anecdotes, and correct for the most part. Microsoft has built an empire based upon "Microsoft everywhere". Back in the 'old days' (late 1970's) it was MS BASIC and ran on just about any piece and shape of silicon out there. Didn't matter what you owned, as long as you had MS BASIC you can run all your same programs.

      Obviously with the IBM-PC, Microsoft everywhere morphed into DOS everywhere. When all the clones came out, MS made sure that DOS would run on any brand PC. Then came Windows (poor Mac ripoff, based on their early experience making Excel), and they bent-over backwards to get it running on any PC. At some point, they became so entrenched that MS could begin dictating what features need to go into the PCs.

      Developers love Windows, because in part MS makes a easy IDE to program with (when any idiot can program for Windows, any idiot does program for Windows) and since Windows is so obiquitous there isn't any reason to spent money and effort on any other platform. If I were a company, I'd shudder at the thought of getting my stuff running on all sorts of various OSes, each which had a significant chunk of the maretplace. Microsoft's monopoly has made it easier for developers, and they like it.

      Microsoft's downfall, if it ever happens, will be continued security problems which make them shunned in the market. Despite all the viruses and malware, I don't see too many folks making drastic changes in dumping Windows. Not yet, anyway. If Vista turns out to be too different, where existing applications don't run, people will either keep what they've got (bad for MS) or switch to something else altogether (also bad for MS).

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
    10. Re:Its your choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you...and I have all of the applications that I use working flawlessly (for years!) on my non-XP systems (couple of dozen linux machines).

      As the original post said: "I'm getting things done."
      I'm surrounded by windoze people who are happy if their browser is working...

      My line is: "I don't work for Microsoft. I charge $250 per hour to look at your windoze machine, or call M$. I'll help you with a linux machine for free. Your choice."

    11. Re:Its your choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macs suck just as bad as windows if not worse.
      In fact it is worse because there are no games. ( World of WarCraft with a mighty mouse??)
      If you like Macs your falling for the same bullshit. only in a prettier box.
      Although, im digging ur sarcasm...

  24. Shiny shiny! by vga_init · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think screenshots will be the selling point for most people.

    1. Re:Shiny shiny! by Anonymous+Poodle · · Score: 2, Funny

      They sold me--I can't wait to install it on my new MacBook . . . . .

    2. Re:Shiny shiny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think screenshots will be the selling point for most people.

      Considering how ugly the default theme on XP is and how well it sold... I doubt it. Vista will sell because it'll come preloaded on something like 99% of all computers.

  25. SECURITY!?! by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When they have things like the WMF flaw in the designs (And ended up in Vista as well as XP and 2000...) they are NOT about security.

    Security is by design, not as a friggin' afterthought.

    This has little to do with MS bashing- it's just that MS doesn't think much about security and everyone knows it (Well, everyone but you, it seems...)

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:SECURITY!?! by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that the WMF vulnarability made it into WINE, Microsoft certainly doesn't have the monopoly for accepting blame. Face it, when you're dealing with billions of lines of code, it's easy for a vulnarability to be overlooked. The only advantage Linux has over MS is the open development model. Microsoft can only hire a finite number of prgrammers to de-bug code, whereas with open development you theoreticaly have an infinite number of programmers, or rather, the every programmer alive, being able to contribute. That's it. If Linux was a closed model OS the way Windows is, and if it was more mainstream, you'd see many of the same problems popping up there. So let's not demonize MS eh? They do a good enough job of making themselves look bad; it's not neccesary for every linux-geek in existance to join in the witch-hunt.

    2. Re:SECURITY!?! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Face it, when you're dealing with billions of lines of code, it's easy for a vulnarability to be overlooked.

      That is why you should make an effort to design your specs (wmf) to not have built in flaws. I doubt wmf specs were millions of lines, and then Windows (all versions) and WINE would both be safe.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:SECURITY!?! by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      That is exactly how Microsoft does their programming now, it's called the Security Development Lifecycle.

      You have to remember, the WMF processing code was created long before SDL existed, and when few people thought cancelling a print job could have unintended consequences.

    4. Re:SECURITY!?! by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      Well, if you read TFA, you'd know that they were reviewing all of their designs for such types of vulnerabilities - but had not reached the spec for wmf files yet. Vista is still in beta - you can't really criticize them for having a security hole in a beta product when they haven't finished securing the vulnerable components.

      That is, if you believe what Allchin says..

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    5. Re:SECURITY!?! by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The open development model may be the "only" advantage Linux has over Windows, but it's a very big "only"! It's like saying that the "only" advantage television has over radio is pictures .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  26. Easy by Life700MB · · Score: 0


    Just forget of getting software updates and drivers, just as they did with XP.


    --
    Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

  27. Keeping the masses on the upgrade merry-go-around by OmegaBlac · · Score: 1, Redundant

    It is not in Microsoft's interest to develop and release a very secure operating system. Of course if any version of Windows was truly secure enough for the masses, then most people wouldn't upgrade from that version until they purchased a new machine with a new version of Windows preinstalled or ever. We all know this so it comes as no surprise that Microsoft would try to sell this version of Windows to be more secure then XP. They will do the same when Blackcomb (or whatever the next version is code-named) is going to be released. Anyone that continues to buy into the marketing propaganda that Microsoft spews will receive no sympathy from me. Personally I would not touch Vista due to its DRM-infested crap anyways.

  28. marketting is fun to watch by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

    i love the majority of beer commercials. but i have had to stop drinking cuz i can't handle alcohol.
    same with microsoft. great marketers, those ms guys. but my last PC purchase came with winme. seems i can't handle msware any more than i can hold my liquor. i hope they bring back the guy in the butterfly suit, those ads were fun to watch...

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
  29. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It has little to do with the users these days. It's more about the inept application developers.

    I've found a relationship (too bad slashdot doesn't do math symbols):

    x = the cost of the software product that runs on Windows
    y = the chance the software requires everyone using it to log in as administrator

    As x -> infinity, y -> infinity

    Seriously though, too much windows software, especially vertical apps or expensive commercial apps, still require every user to log in as administrator.

    MS should force this issue, you are right. It should be something like Mac OS X does by default, you shouldn't be able to log in as administrator by default. That would at least send the application developers a message that developing your software to assume admin access is stupid.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  30. Re:Slow news day by kubevubin · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what I was thinking. Is Slashdot really that desperate for 'news'?

  31. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, users will run in a non-admin account. But they won't have to login (except for admin tasks - a bit like sudo). And IE runs in a sandbox.

  32. Upgrade or keep crashing by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft designed the 9x with the clear conscience that it's not as stable as its NT platform.

    Why was it developed? Compatibility. People wouldn't really drop all their DOS and Windows 3.11 programs, so 9x was the bridge that allowed the smooth transition that ultimately brought the consumer to the NT platform.

    The plain logic basically was "we have the better platform, but you want compatibility, so here's a compromise".

    Now that 16-bit is a thing of the past, the DOS layer could be removed ultimately resulting in a fully 32-bit protected environment that is Win 2000 and XP. Is Microsoft to blame they sell XP as more stable OS?

    Could they have success with any other strategy? I'd say unlikely.

    Vista is the next step in improving security and it took a lot of effort to develop this OS, the entire submission is a flamebait: if you were Microsoft, would you work 6 years on a new product and give it for free? Yes, imagine, you have to pay for the updates, and yes the purpose of updating is improved security, new features and modern hardware support.

    Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to upgrade. It just does its best to demonstrate the benefits of its latest offering, because this is what software companies do with new releases.

    Now get over it, and stop ranting.

    1. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vista is the next step in improving security and it took a lot of effort to develop this OS, the entire submission is a flamebait: if you were Microsoft, would you work 6 years on a new product and give it for free?

      Why not? Linus Torvalds did ;)

      All joking aside, I agree with you insofar as no-one's giving away major upgrades to commercial operating systems. But you've sidestepped the issue which was first raised by Douglas Adams in 1995 and AFAICT still exists:

      "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all his customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who by peddling second-hand, second-rate technology, led them all into it in the first place."

    2. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Second-rate? That's an insult to second-rate programmers everywhere!

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    3. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by Eljas · · Score: 1

      The main reason I had to upgrade from Windows 2000 to XP Pro was harware (read "driver") incompatibility with a new graphics card. After trying the usual voodoo of switching cards between the PCI-slots I found out that the newest Creative's Sound Blaster driver installer couldn't detect my Audigy 2 card, even when Creative's web-update tool detected it just fine. And it was easy to read between the lines that Creative had no intentions to fix the problem.

      But it gets even funnier. I decided that getting XP would be easiest choise, me being student it wasn't really even that expensive. I live in Finland. After much research and few phone calls I found out that it is impossible to buy Windows XP Pro student upgrade English in Finland without credit card, but the places from I could have pirated it were abundant. Finally I gave up and got the Finnish version. The graphics card works fine, no problem installing the SB drivers.

    4. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would you work 6 years on a new product and give it for free?

      Why not? Linus Torvalds did ;)

      Yeah, and I suppose you're now going to say that Linux was easy enough for my mom to install on her own in 1995? Err.. I don't think so.

      Windows '95 - sure.
      Reconfiguring and recompiling the Linux kernel - not going to happen.

      Get usability out of your ass. OSX still can't provide stupid little details like consistent keyboard shortcuts across applications (is it CRTL+C or Apple+C to copy text today?) - and Linux is significantly behind OSX (which in turn is behind Windows in terms of a consistent user experience.

    5. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank god windows 95 had no networking by default...

      easy to install + easy to pwn = nasty packets flickering around the networks 'cause Mom can't really be expected to keep track of patches, she's awfully busy being Mom (it ain't easy)..

    6. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by malkavian · · Score: 1

      The real reason was that there was no way NT would run on a standard home PC in those days, or a standard business PC.
      NT was a complete hog compared to resources required by 3.11.
      Knowing that they'd completely fail if they pushed NT as the next step because most people couldn't afford to buy the hardware needed to run it, they packaged '95 as a solution.
      I was working in IT for the ad agency that had the Microsoft account, and I saw the campaign being built, and the reasons for the claims.
      One was that 95 would run in x (where x was 4 I think) meg of ram. The reason that was set as the mark was that people on the above average machines would have enough memory to run it, and memory was sufficiently cheap to enable people to upgrade to enough to run it.
      However, running anything on top of it was another matter, and needed more RAM. However, that was happily left out of the ads (what a surprise).
      Compatibility wasn't that big a bugbear. There were some DOS only apps out there, but NT thunked to 16bits happily enough for most offices.
      It was all about making sure MS had the revenue stream to ensure they had their cash injection from the market in a timely manner. They couldn't sell NT to the home market because of hardware spec, and knew it, so '95 was the solution.

    7. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OSX still can't provide stupid little details like consistent keyboard shortcuts across applications (is it CRTL+C or Apple+C to copy text today?)

      Sorry but I've yet to see a Mac app that uses CTRL-C for copying? Which one do you have in mind?

    8. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

      First, "not forcing anyone to upgrade?" What about End-Of-Lifing their products, where they no longer support them (regardless of how 2nd/3rd party vendors give up on the platforms far before that time). And I don't know how valid they are, but the whole XP registration process - doesn't that give MS a DMCA key to not allow us to use their OS after any time they determine? Corporate entities with their private versions of XP mean the big hitters could use it for years after the public is allowed...

      OT: In my experience, Windows 98 is still the most stable Windows platform. Until DirectX 9 it was rock steady for me. I've seen more blue screens under 2000 or XP in a month than in 5 years of 98.

      The problem with talking like this is that we each have our own experiences. My anecdotes are just as valid and true as yours. Too bad we can't bring this discussion to a more productive level. Or has someone?

      8-PP

    9. Re:Upgrade or keep crashing by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

      Why not? Linus Torvalds did ;)

      What he did was design an OS from geeks for geeks. It makes a great server (my preferred server OS as well), and a terrible desktop "for the rest of us".

      We gotta face it, the world needs better than Linux for some things, and Windows is that better thing.

  33. Yes, they charge for it. However... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would you tell someone to stick with a several-flavors-ago version of your favorite distro, or to keep using Firefox 1.0? Yes, yes, free, all free blah blah blah. Believe it or not, the +/-$100 just ain't that big a deal for a lot of people, but the disruption of an upgrade (to the O/S or a significant app) is frequently the thing that puts the brakes on.

    So... for most people (no, not slashdot readers), this will just happen as a new machine rotates into their life anyway. For a lot of users, "Oooh! Shiny!" is a reason to spend +/-$100. But upgrades are disruptive for people (not slashdotters) who don't actively like doing them, and the Grandma You've Talked Into Using Mandrake Who Probably Should Be Using Mandriva vX.whatever Which Means New Hardware And That Means While We're At It Let's Change Some Apps scenario is just as ugly. Never mind the dollars.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  34. VISTA by H9000 · · Score: 1

    people may have to wait a additional decade to get the same security level that is already available on many other Operating Systems today for free. my 0.02 Cent

  35. Security? by Kirsha · · Score: 1

    For who?

    Me, the user, or the companies? Because they have to protect them from us, since we are all pirates anyways.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

  36. Oblig. by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dr. Melfi: "Sounds to me like Anthony Jr. may have stumbled onto existentialism."

    Tony Soprano: "Fuckin' Intanet!"

  37. Of course... by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...if Microsoft ignored security in Vista, /. would have an article about how unconcerned they seem to be about it.

    I guess this is why MS doesn't listen to /. for advice on how to build their new product.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this is why MS doesn't listen to /. for advice on how to build their new product.

      Well of course it is! I've been told that Windows 95 had improved security, Windows 98 had improved security, Windows 2000 is more secure, Windows XP has a security center, and we're still getting vulnerabilities on the scale of the WMF one.

      If you fuck someone over repeatedly then asked them what they thought, you're never going to get a positive answer.

  38. Microsoft to support file sharing? by black+hole+sun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I found this little bit of info fascinating:

    In particular, he demonstrated a collaboration tool that uses a "People Near Me" feature, which searches over a Wi-Fi connection for other Vista users nearby and then sets up a peer-to-peer network with them. The tool is meant mostly to enable laptop users to share applications and files, among other things.

    So Microsoft is, in effect, creating its own file sharing network? I wonder how the *AA will react?

    1. Re:Microsoft to support file sharing? by idonthack · · Score: 1

      It's not really a "file-sharing network" as you imagine it to be, it just hooks up the computers with Wi-Fi. If you had a bunch of ethernet cables and a hub you could do the same thing.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    2. Re:Microsoft to support file sharing? by Vorondil28 · · Score: 1

      No, no. In this context "peer-to-peer" is Windows-Speak for "without a domain controller." WinXP (and every version since 3.11, for that matter) supports p2p networking -- just put two Windows boxes on a switch and in the same workgroup and you've got a p2p network. With Vista, however, you won't even have to do that. It'll use some discovery method to find other Vista machines on your segment (or segments if you have multiple NICs) and establish a p2p network between them. Can you share files with it? Sure, but it's vastly different from having, say, BitTorrent or eD2K capability out of the box.

      --
      This sig rocks the casbah.
  39. Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by kai.chan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the advent of the iPod, I already know of a few people who are considering a Mac as their next purchase -- the everyday Joe who would have never considered a Mac before. With more game and application developer support on the Macs, I think Apple has the ability to eat a large chunk of the Desktop OS market during the switch from XP to Vista. If Guild Wars, Counter Strike Source, and Spore get a Mac release, I'd certainly be one to get a Mac. It would also make my decision between Linux or Mac a bit easier.

    1. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by EchoNiner · · Score: 1

      Where is our Linux distro version of OpenOffice? This is the striking point to push a version of Linux that is so close to Windows it's scary. I know a lot of Linux geeks don't care about converting users, but to all of those who do -- the time is now!

      I'm not trying to preach, but what we need is a suitable windows clone Linux distro that everyone can stand behind and say: "Hey, here's an easy, free way to convert instead of paying out the ass for something that will probably not be any more secure." The Linux community is missing a huge opportunity to do what OpenOffice has been doing -- offering free software that is easy to migrate to by the average windows user.

      Hit them when it counts. Every company that uses windows is looking at huge upgrade fees to go to Vista, why not convince the companies when they're staring at the huge bill?

    2. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by BuR4N · · Score: 1

      "If Guild Wars, Counter Strike Source, and Spore get a Mac release, I'd certainly be one to get a Mac."

      Concidering that the Windows game market is questioned from time to time, the outlook that people will spend a couple of millions on a game convert for a 2-3% market segment is not very likely. Especially when Apples pitch is some sort of lifestyle device which isnt directly targeted at the average gamer.

      --
      http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
    3. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been saying this for the past month. The Ipod has given Apple an image of value. Apple is cool.

      Just say it. Apple... You think cool, sleek, well designed, pretty, elite, hip, trendy...

      Now say Microsoft... You think Buggy, Bland, Unrealiable, spyware, virii, adware, trojans, security holes, ugly ui, boring, and the biggest thing is... NOTHIng HAS CHANGED.

      When you think of Microsoft, you realize that nothing has really improved. Think of their media player? Media Player Classic is better. Think of IE... think of all the shitty spam like bullshit things that hook into IE wether it be toolbars, or whatever.

      Think MSN DESKTOP SEARCH... and how ugly it is... how slow it is....

      Microsoft has a HUGE problem on its hands. It has a piss poor image and Apple has a hot shit image right now.

      Walk into an apple store and realize that they have worked really hard on image. Their UI is more fluid and faster, more inventive... Windows looks bland, kiddy. Oh uh.. Its Nintendo vs Sony all over again...

      Microsoft has a very big problem.

      People will be jumping ship to MAC this year and more the next year because of IPOD and the perceived value that is APPLE.

      Apple provides a better product? I Dont know, but i'm guessing they probably do because thats how i perceive them now. I'm a PC user. I dont use anything apple other than my IPOD. My friends a Film editor and runs mac hardware and its pretty nice from what i can tell.

      We're going to see a huge shift. The hardware is the same now, so really you're chosing between Apple and Microsoft. Say their names out loud again and tell me what words come to mind right away.

    4. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, first off, the current market penetration of Macs is more like 5-6% right now, not 3-4%. But I realize that's basically splitting hairs. I get your point, and I tend to agree. But with Apple moving to Intel processors on new Macs, it seems like a lot of new possibilities may open up.

      Microsoft, for example, currently owns and sells "VirtualPC" - which is pretty much the only way a Mac user can install and run Windows on a Mac. But with new Macs being Intel-based, it seems logical Microsoft might update VirtualPC to be a product that simply allows simultaneous execution of Windows code in a window inside OS X, rather than emulating all the x86 instructions by translating them to PPC native code.

      If this happens, there's no reason Windows couldn't run well enough inside OS X on a new Mac to finally allow Windows games to run at near-native speeds. New Macs all have fairly respectable ATI or nVidia graphics cards - capable of the same features as their Windows counterparts for 3D gaming.

      The Mac may never really get lots of game developers interesting in writing or even porting Windows games to OS X native titles - but they might succeed in bringing Windows to it instead, while keeping everything under the umbrella of OS X.

    5. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be news to you, but Apple has always been known as "cool, sleek, well designed, pretty" among us old school Mac users. And judging by your appalling capitalization habits with regards to "Mac," "iPod," and "Apple," you've never been--nor will you ever be--one of us, no matter how valiantly you strain.

      My advice? Stick to Windows and Linux. They were made for folks like you, by folks like you.

    6. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Cythrawl · · Score: 1

      Thats typical, he defends Mac's he even says they are cool and that OSX is cool, and STILL a mac owner slams him... I think the whole "my OS/hardware is better than yours" is still as childish as it was back when it was my Atari ST is better than your Commodore Amiga back in the late 80's/early 90's.. People GROW THE FUCK UP!!!! I personally dotn use a Mac, OSX or Linux, becuase they dont run what I want. Its not because I hate them. I can see the total advantages of them all, and really the world is big enought for them all... Do I have a problem with Windows Security?... No.. Because I am not like an average Joe who knows jack all.. My system is pretty tight and I doubt its going to be compromised, just like it has NEVER been compromised since I have used Win 2000/XP.. Does this mean the problems arent there?.. Hell no... But all this bickering that Youre' sad and I'm cool because I use Hardware X and OS Z are no better than schoolground arguments about who's the bast Boy Band/ Heavy Metal ban... VERY CHILDISH...

    7. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by greenrd · · Score: 1
      It's not that easy unfortunately because neither Wine nor Mono are complete. I think there are a bunch of distros already trying to snag desktop users specifically - Linspire for example, although they're a bit dodgy.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    8. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Cythrawl · · Score: 1

      Oh and just a reminder O Mac user... it wasnt ALWAYS cool.. I remember when Amiga OS had MacOS on its knees back in the day... It was much cooler to own an Amiga back then and cheaper too.. Shame Commodre never saw thier error of complacency and did not upgrade the hardware to keep up with current trends... Kinda goes against my last post, but you really are a jerk..

    9. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, all I did was point out that because he seems to be a PC user at heart--in that he walks, talks, thinks, and expresses himself like a PC user--it might not be in his best interests to buy a Mac. He's not cut from Apple cloth, just like we're not cut from PC cloth. Different strokes and all that.

    10. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually when I think of Windows, I know that whatever software I buy will will. When I think linux I think of editing text files to get a damn wireless controller to work. When I think of OSX I think of apple killing the clone market and charging $129 every year for an update. So FOAD I use windows because it works for me.

    11. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by westlake · · Score: 1
      I think Apple has the ability to eat a large chunk of the Desktop OS market during the switch from XP to Vista.

      The Year of Linux. The Year of the Mac.

      In the home market? Not a chance. Mac users upgrade within the Mac family, Windows users within the Windows family. Nothing has significantly altered that equation in twenty-five years.

    12. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by damsa · · Score: 1

      Considering the cost of Virtual PC and a Windows license, it would probably just cheaper to get an Xbox 360 and a Mac. In any case, MS wins in any case.

    13. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by edbulldog · · Score: 0

      The Year of Linux. The Year of the Mac.
      Hey... we should make a chinese-like zodiac :D

    14. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by edbulldog · · Score: 0

      the everyday Joe who would have never considered a Mac before.

      And, considering myself an everyday Joe as far as computers go, you can consider that the everyday Joe also needs to buy a whole new computer.
      I need to buy a new video card, new procesor, new MoBo and new RAM just to run Vista... and if I need to do all that, then I prefer to buy a Mac and get away from Windows. I don't care about the price diference.

      I'm an everyday Joe with a Mac in my mind.

    15. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about Amiga? Who cares about "cool"? Certainly not us Mac users--I'm just parroting the parent commenter's terminology. Stop being such a whore for the vagaries of popular taste.

    16. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      troll... I'll bite.

      What the hell are you even talking about? :) Macs were not always "cool sleek and designed well" Macs may have been those things at various times but Macs have also been in "no man's land" for quite sometime until recently.

      What i'm talking about is perceived image. What mac users have known all along, true or not... is irrelevant.

      Perceived image in todays market is going to shift some of the users. That was my point.

      Yes i'll CAPITALIZE my words when i feel like it. Been doing it since the early BBS days, when stressing words. Deal with it.

    17. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by frodo527 · · Score: 0

      Player right, there is definitely a market opportunity for non-MS OSes.

      I've made two converts from Windows to Mac during the past year. I didn't do it by coming across as a wild-eyed zealot, but rather by (a) showing them the general look and feel of the system, and (b) explaining how due to OS-X's design it's extremely stable and free of viruses and other kinds of malware.

      My first convert was my brother, who needed a laptop, checked out my G4 iBook, and wound up getting a 12" PowerBook. The second was someone whose home LAN I've done some work on and needed a new computer to replace a 5 year old Gateway which died. He got a Mac Mini for his kids' use so they can do their schoolwork. Security was one of the big selling points for him, since I'd cleaned a ton of spyware and a root kit off his other two PCs.

      --
      http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/
    18. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by EchoNiner · · Score: 1

      This proves my point. We're going at getting a distro widely accepted like the democrats are trying to take power. The Linux community needs to stand together behind a nice distro.

    19. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by toddestan · · Score: 1

      but Apple has always been known as "cool, sleek, well designed, pretty" among us old school Mac users

      What are you talking about? I remember the Macs from 10 years ago. They were TERRIBLE machines. Even Windows 95 was cool, sleek, pretty, and well designed in comparison.

    20. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Baki · · Score: 1

      Windows might be degraded to a pure gaming platform. That is quite a step back from its current position.

      I for one would consider to switch my desktop to linux, and move games to either a console or dual boot into my existing (by then outdated and unsupported) windows. When it is used only as a gaming environment, the security argument looses quite some weight. I won't upgrade to vista, that is sure.

    21. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Actually I was thinking of buying a mac ... until I got an iPod. Don't get me wrong, it's basically a nice product, but my goodness the software (under windows) is a piece of shit. Why is my iPod not recognised by iTunes until I remap it to an unused drive letter? Can't it just pick an unused one itself like every single other product I have ever plugged into my PC? Why does it even need a drive letter? My phone and camera don't!

    22. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the home market? Not a chance. Mac users upgrade within the Mac family, Windows users within the Windows family. Nothing has significantly altered that equation in twenty-five years.


      It depense on how you define significant.

      I work at a university of over 30k students and 10k staff/faculty. While there is not a wholesale push toward Apple amongst the staff and faculty (the kids are converting themselves quite handily) I'm seeing a number of defections to Apple, and yes we're talking about home machines here. Being an IT guy at a public university you are constantly getting quizzed on what machines to buy and what machines they've bought. Considering that I'm the point of contact for configuring VPN access I get a pretty good idea as to the OS mix in the wild.

      On a side note we did have a guy come in from the private sector who used to work for a bank. They made him run OpenBSD on his laptop which I thought made sense with respect to security (tho I don't know the exact reason(s) why).

      No everybody isn't dropping their XP box to run for a Mac, but there are more people coming over to OS X than there are moving to Windows. Will Apple rival Microsoft? Hell no. Will Apple nail ten percent market share in the coming years? Maybe.

      But that's okay. I'd rather drive an Acura than a Chevy.

      As a disclaimer I'm a Mac user at home, and run Linux and Windows (ala Vmware) on my work machine.
    23. Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a person with a piss-poor sense of aesthetics, Mr. Type PC Personality, would claim such a thing.

  40. Buy Vista or Else.... by kgutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How will they market vista ? , well first thing they will do is stop supporting XP, and when the new vulnerability comes up , both corporates and home user will have no choice but to upgrade. Security wise , i hope vista introduce newer programming model call "Advance improved Complex OLE and Advance COM and DCOM" , which BTW only virus writer and visual basic programmers understands and not C programmers. They can't implement unix security model , because than why pay for it :) I think they have also implemented strong anti-piracy feature , which will not "allow you to update" if you don't have a "genuine" vista ,which is more laughable as it takes one malicious program to make genuine to un-genuine Have a nice day.

    1. Re:Buy Vista or Else.... by cosminn · · Score: 1

      How will they market vista ? , well first thing they will do is stop supporting XP, and when the new vulnerability comes up , both corporates and home user will have no choice but to upgrade.

      You mean like they did with Windows 2000? ... not. XP will still have support, there just won't be any features added to it. It's like the 2.4 kernel.

      They can't implement unix security model , because than why pay for it :)

      Because OSX is totally free....

      I think they have also implemented strong anti-piracy feature , which will not "allow you to update" if you don't have a "genuine" vista ,which is more laughable as it takes one malicious program to make genuine to un-genuine

      And you think they don't know that? Every DRM protection so far has been broken (well, we'll see how Intel Macs will do).

      Not to mention that the conspiracy thoery is that both MS and Apple don't _really_ want their OSes to be uncrackable ;)

  41. But... by Svartalf · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's not a new codebase. It's more stuff piled on top of NT 3.1...

    They've not honestly used a new codebase for much of anything since Win95, Win 3.1, or DOS.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  42. Also comes to mind is... by Vorondil28 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Ballmer.

    "Fucking XP users are fucking pussies. I'm going to fucking bury them, I have done it before, and I will do it again...I'm going to fucking kill anybody that doesn't upgrade."

    --
    This sig rocks the casbah.
  43. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by ajwitte · · Score: 1

    I am currently logged into Mac OS X from the default account. It's an administrator account. Until I changed the relevant settings, the system didn't even require my password to log in to said administrator account. I'm comfortable with using my admin account for everyday use, though, because the system requires my password before doing anything 'administrative', aside from copying applications into the /Applications directory. It's not unlike having your everyday-use Linux account in the sudoers group. Not especially insecure, but at times very convenient.

    --
    chown -R us ~you/base
  44. Isn't XP secure? Is MS selling defective software? by tvlinux · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If they are selling something defective and unsecure, is that not against the law? Should you not get a free replacement of a OS to one that is secure? Are they going to warranty the new product in term of security? Are they just out to make money or are they doing this for the consumer?

    We ALL know the answers to these questions, so why use Vista when here are other OSs that fix the problems.

  45. Violin cases by Zygote-IC- · · Score: 1

    "That's a real nice desktop picture of a naked Britney Spears -- and a very nice 250gb drive full of carefully labeled and cross referenced pr0n. Hey Vito, wouldn't it be a shame if something -- ya know -- bad was to happen to it? Yeah, a real shame."

  46. I remember when I migrated from Win98... by ylikone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... to Linux. Haven't had any upgrade issues since.

    --
    Meh.
  47. Read this or the terrorists have already won . . . by pariahdecss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is nothing new . . . we live in an society (post 9-11) where everything is predicated on fear. "Buy our anti-bacterial hand soap or your kids may die!!" , "Buy this ADT security system or you are a failure as a parent" . . . marketers and the government have embraced the ubiquitous power of fear and uncertainty to sell everything from tampons to troop deployments . . .ad nausea infinitum

    Personally I am more afraid of deploying Windows Vista than not, and Microsoft can stick the DRM in the orifice of their choice.

  48. heres the source code by Cannedbread · · Score: 0

    i just finished hacking into microsofts code repository. this is the vista sourcecode.

    #include WindowsXP.h
    #include DRM.h
    #include even_more_pointless_interface_crap.h

    int main()
    {
    extract_money_from_users()
    }

    After extensive analysis, you too will realize that "sharing" will become a thing of the past. and microsoft will be thanked heavily by the *AA

  49. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by LocoMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was reading somewhere (I think on cnet too, I'll look for the URL later) that Vista will require the admin password to do admin stuff, and won't run on admin by default. They also said they were making a list of all the software that required administrative access, and dividing them in different categories. Those that actually needed admin. access will require the password be entered before opening (or before doing the specific section that needed it).

    Also it said that there are lots of apps out there that just check for admin access on startup but don't need it, just that the developers was lazy by not checking wether it ran on limited accounts. In those cases, Vista default will be to report to the program that it's running with admin priviledges, but actually run it with limited priviledges.

    I'll try to find the URL and post it later, I know I read it in the last couple of days or so.

  50. Or else what... by panth0r · · Score: 2, Funny

    You'll send the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths that shoot bees when the bark?

    --
    I like suggestions, but I don't like contributing towards them.
    1. Re:Or else what... by panth0r · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the robotic Richard Simmons...

      --
      I like suggestions, but I don't like contributing towards them.
    2. Re:Or else what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sick, sick man. Your vision of hell is worse than goatse.cx

  51. Trying to be fair about it by TheReaperD · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of what I have read, there will be, at least, one thing that could improve Vista's security. Also, several people have commented on it without having read anything about Vista. Users will login to a limited access user account, rather then an administrator account as the default.

    Unfortunately, there are several bad points with Vista that will make me hesitate on upgrading:

    1. DRM This is a big one, for me.
    2. Requires a P3 800 or higher, just to run the operating system with no tangible benefit to the user.
    3. Visual enhancements require Direct X 9c compatible hardware.
    4. No compelling features.
    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    1. Re:Trying to be fair about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. No compelling features.

      What??? The application level audio control feature isn't enough to sell it for you?

    2. Re:Trying to be fair about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visual enhancements require Direct X 9c compatible hardware.

      No, Aero Glass requires DirectX 9 compatible hardware. I'm not sure about Aero, and of course there's the bargain basement Win2K mode.

      DirectX 9 hardware is GeForce 5200+ and Radeon 9200+.
      DirectX 9.0C hardware is Geforce 6200+ and Radeon X1000+.

      Despite the difference in letters, 9.0 versus 9.0c, the difference in cards means this is not a nitpick.

    3. Re:Trying to be fair about it by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      1. welcome to 2005. Stick with linux or realize you'll be buying into DRM. Knowing the **AA, if linux ever really did make it big, they'd be forced to add DRM or would be outlawed by the US of A. 2. Wrong, it requires that to run in pretty mode. 2k mode runs like... 2k 3. And?? Nobody is making you run with visual enhancements... 4. You *MIGHT* be able to get by thinking there aren't any compelling end-user enhancements (depending on what you do on your PC this may in fact be true). Fact of the matter is, a big portion of this is security, and enhancements for programmers. When the next version of your favorite *insert app here* rolls out with Vista only support I have a feeling you'll change your mind rather quickly though.

    4. Re:Trying to be fair about it by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Requires a P3 800 or higher, just to run the operating system with no tangible benefit to the user

      I would take this with a salt lick they use to feed cows. Microsoft has always understated the requirements everytime they release an OS.

      It runs alright, but you'll wish you had some Pepto-Bismal.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:Trying to be fair about it by e40 · · Score: 1
      Users will login to a limited access user account, rather then an administrator account as the default.
      I recently gave my wife an account on my laptop, making it limited access. It's running XP SP2. I couldn't even install some FireFox extensions under the account (some Chrome error on restarting when installing the extension). I couldn't install Thunderbird either. After a little fiddling, I gave up and gave her admin privs.

      Unless limited access users can do a reasonable set of things, it will be useless and they'll just upgrade to admin privs.

    6. Re:Trying to be fair about it by spacefrog · · Score: 1

      Chrome registration error?

      That's a Firefox issue, not anything specific to Windows, I get that on my Ubuntu box from time-to-time. Restarting ff seems to solve it.

    7. Re:Trying to be fair about it by e40 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I said it was FireFox related, but it ONLY hapened when I made her account "limited" and installed an extension. Tried to install an extension, that is, since it never completed.

  52. I don't get anything more I need with Vista by feranick · · Score: 1

    I remember the hype about the security of Windows XP what it was soon to be introduced to the market. "Built on the solid foundation of Windows NT". Well, we all know how bumpy the path has been for Win XP in terms of security. Would I trust Vista for security? Honestly, NO. New features? All the interesting one have been either delayed or they will backported to WinXP. So considering the increased hardware requirements, I really see no point in upgrading.

    I am not saying I will dump Windows. If used properly (proper firefox, proper antivirus), Win XP is good enough for my home use. I don't want to be a guinea pig for Vista. When the time will come I'll upgrade, yes, but to Linux. I am already slowly moving to it.

    Bottom line: To be lured by MS I need way more. I would consider Vista only as a free upgrade. Call me cheapy, but for what I know I don't see what more I can get from it than in using Windows XP or Linux.

  53. whos security? by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

    exactly who will be more secure with vista? Microsoft? RIAA? MS shareholders?

    As long as Vista is backwards compatible with XP it will remain vulnerable.

  54. Windows Vista tagline: by mrobin604 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Windows Vista: Now you can let someone else tell you what you can do with your data."

  55. Umm... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    What's this "story" about? That MS promotes Vista as more secure and stable? Yes, so? Not hard to imagine unless MS is only making things worse and worse with each release, and also easy to imagine since it's ads for christ sake. Even if it wasn't true, it would still be written. Ads 101.

    Is this the article we're supposed to flame Microsoft's ads on and laugh about old BSOD jokes?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  56. East German judge awards 9.9 by mikaelhg · · Score: 1

    The East German judge awards 9.9 strawman troll points to this astroturfer.

    1. Re:East German judge awards 9.9 by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Normally I wouldn't bother replying, but I would like to know who I am astroturfing for, exactly. Is it the company I made fun of, or maybe some ancillary concern?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  57. Buy Viste or Else... by alchemist68 · · Score: 1

    My opinion is aimed more at the "user" crowd, not necesarily the "Slashdot" crowd.

    Given the product offerings of Apple and its transition to Intel chips (I personally think this is a bad idea, it should have stayed with IBM and PowerPC), this couldn't be a better opportunity for the Windows PC crowd to *CONSIDER* a Macintosh running Mac OS X. My personal philosophy regarding computers is to buy the top-of-the-line Apple Power Macintosh every 5 to 7 years - really, for a *PERSONAL COMPUTER* you cannot go wrong, depending on what you use it for. Mac OS X, from my perspective is much more secure and easier to operate than Windows. I have a broadband connection and Apple's firewall turned on, along with "Block UDP Traffic, Enable Firewall Logging, and Enable Stealth Mode" all turned on. There are no virii for Mac OS X, no trojan horses, no spyware, etc... yet. I think that with Apple's offerings from the Mac Mini, iMac, and Power Mac, one simply cannot go wrong, BECAUSE, you get all of the features of the operating system regardless of the computer you buy. For email, websurfing, to using iLife, and M$ Office (Open Office / NeoOffice alternatives), you really cannot find a better computer for ANYONE to use out-of-the-box.

    I think, when it really comes down to selecting a computer, how much do you value your personal time? Do you want to spend your time configuring your computer (Linux and Windows may require this)? Do you want to spend valueable time and money on virii/spyware software? As a scientist, my time is very valuable, I don't have time to waste. I think anyone should like to find a computer/operating system that would allow for the best optimization of time and efficiency, most bang for the buck, that could be found on the marketplace. If anyone replies that Apple is a closed/proprietary architecture, well, so is a PC, Intel/AMD have patent protection. No matter where one buys the PC mother board, some patent protection is supporting it.

    I think the real issue is, how valuable is your time, sanity, peace of mind? I don't have time to waste...Do you?

    1. Re:Buy Viste or Else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or else doesn't taste so good.

      When my engineering apps don't run on XP anymore I will have no choice but to upgrade. As for Mac OS kitty11 or Linux flavor-of-the-day, no one has written a version of SolidWorks or Pro-Engineer for them. That would have to happen before I could even consider switching, and believe me, I'd like to have the option.

  58. Extra! Extra! by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot comment about Linux possibly having vulnerabilities gets modded flamebait, read all about it!

    How ignorant. Hopefully someone will mod this post back up to at least 1.

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  59. what about SP2? by Britz · · Score: 1

    I always thought XP SP2 was all about security and is secure now (from Microsoft's viewpoint). What happened to that?

  60. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..... And by requiring all that, you immediately nullify one of the chief "advantages" of Windows. That is, the ability just to turn on a computer and start using it, without identifying yourself or otherwise taking notice of it. You don't get a screenful of diagnostic messages ending with a bunch of green [OK]s while Windows is booting up, "in case that might confuse the poor user". {As a full-time Linux user who has had to attempt to fix a Windows box, I can say that not having those messages is way more inconvenient for the technician than having them is inconvenient for the user. Users can just ignore them, after all. On that logic, maybe we should start building cars where the oil pressure and alternator warning lights don't come on when you first turn on the ignition.} The default privilege level is administrator; but unlike root on a unix system, there are certain actions that are blocked from even an administrator on a Windows system.

    I think Windows with passwords is going to be a bit like a pale imitation of KDE.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  61. Not even the same code lines by charnov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do realize that the Win95, etc. core and the NT cores aren't even from the same code lines?

    Nice FUD, though...

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  62. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. User has been using Windows XP.
    2. Critical security hole discovered in WinXP.
    3. Whoops, Microsoft doesn't support WinXP anymore.
    4. User cannot patch, and so has a choice: buy a Mac, or upgrade to Vista

    The interesting thing is that given Vista's hefty hardware demands, buying a Mac just might be a reasonable alternative since upgrading to Vista will basically mean buying a new PC anyway. To top it off, Apple using Intel chips makes Macs look less "foreign".

  63. A really sad commentary... by seven+of+five · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MS has failed the user community when it has to say, 'don't keep running the old unsecure shit we sold you last year, buy this new shit. And trust us this time.'

  64. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    "IE runs in a sandbox" ? WTF?

    Now I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. Microsoft appear to have given up on making the web browser secure. Given that a web browser is just a program for displaying files {not for editing them, and definitely not for executing them}, that's a really big admission of defeat. Konqueror doesn't need to run in a sandbox .....

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  65. Come back to Windows by Hippy-Liberal+Hater · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well, this was one of the longest Windows bashing threads I have ever read. Mac and linux have been out for years, but they still can't touch MS in desktop use. I have been forced to support Mac's at the university I work at, and everyone who works in support curses and hates mac's. You can't find any info on the net to fix the daily probelms that occur with them. We also have apple support, who haven't a clue how to fix anything. When we call in with a problem, if there is any software installed besides the mac os they say sorry we can't supoort it because we don't know what you installed. Why would anyone use a mac other than its pretty monitors. If you keep virus protection and windows updates up to date, windows can't be beat. I haven't had a virus or crash on a pc since windows 98. Alot has changed since then. Come back to windows people, the rest of the world uses it, there must be a reason.

    1. Re:Come back to Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Come back to windows people, the rest of the world uses it, there must be a reason.

      Thanks, the check is in the mail.

      Bill G.

  66. Take a page from Apple by aduzik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's pretty clear to me that the main reason that Windows has so many security problems is that there is something inherently broken in its design. Remember: when Microsoft first designed Windows, no one was using the Internet, office LANs were pretty much the most networking you were likely to find. So Microsoft didn't have to think about network security back then. Now that the world of computing is increasingly connected to a high-bandwidth Internet connection all the time, it's clear that the model that Windows is built upon is broken.

    I think it would benefit Microsoft to do a fundamental redesign of Windows. Apple did this about five years ago when they made the transition from Classic Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. They designed an API that permitted developers to write software that ran natively on both operating systems (Carbon) and gradually phased it out in favor of an API that was completely native to Mac OS X (Cocoa). At the same time, there were many applications that would only run on Mac OS 9 -- i.e., those that were not Carbonized -- that ran in a (mostly transparent) virtualized environment. Microsoft could follow the same pattern as Apple and redesign their operating system from the ground up with security as a primary focus.

    The thing that's going to get people to upgrade to Vista isn't the desktop search or any new multimedia features. It's the security and the performance. Right now, Microsoft keeps tacking on bloat after bloat to the existing Windows codebase. This has the effect of making Windows slower. Also, these "ad-hoc" additions, I think, have a tendency of opening up security holes. Microsoft, it's time for you to reevaluate the design of your operating system. Instead of focusing on devising as many different editions as you can for Vista -- which, by the way, baffles the hell out of a lot of your customers -- it's time to wipe the slate clean and start over.

    I know we've all said at one point or another, "if I'd known then what I know now, I would have done things completely differently." Well, Microsoft, you do know stuff now that you didn't know 20 years ago. It's time to do things completely differently. Your model no longer works; find a new one.

    --
    If it's not one thing it's your mother.
    1. Re:Take a page from Apple by ivoras · · Score: 1
      The thing that's going to get people to upgrade to Vista isn't the desktop search or any new multimedia features.
      Call me pessimistic, but I think that's EXACTLY why Joe User (as well as your friendly neighbourhood PHB) will buy it.
      --
      -- Sig down
    2. Re:Take a page from Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would benefit Microsoft to do a fundamental redesign of Windows. Apple did this about five years ago when they made the transition from Classic Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.
       
      Yup, a fundamental redesign folks. Nothing old there. Certainly nothing from 1989 in a new suit.

      They designed an API that permitted developers to write software that ran natively on both operating systems (Carbon) and gradually phased it out in favor of an API that was completely native to Mac OS X (Cocoa).
       
      That's right people, Carbon has been phased out! That's why nothing in Cocoa depends upon Carbon! *cough*menus*cough*printdialog*cough*loadsofothers tuff*cough*

      The design of MacOS X is much better than Windows and it was developed with multiuser security in mind but most of the groundwork was done long before Apple got their hands on it. Most of the wonderful stuff they've added since acquiring NeXT has had little to do with security.

      Sincerely yours, a bitter old NeXT user.

    3. Re:Take a page from Apple by tryone · · Score: 1

      I think it would benefit Microsoft to do a fundamental redesign of Windows. Apple did this about five years ago...

      Well, it's a lot easier for Apple to do that than it would be for Microsoft. Windows is deployed in all sorts of business environments where it has to support a wide range of hardware and legacy applications. All MacOS has to do is give Photoshop something to run on.

    4. Re:Take a page from Apple by aduzik · · Score: 1

      Well, it is true that Mac OS doesn't have thousands of different APIs for when Apple changes their mind about what the "next big thing" in development will be. That's why I suggest a virtualization layer and a transition to a cleaner, more long-term, less ad-hoc approach. It would simplify the lives of developers and result in a more secure OS.

      --
      If it's not one thing it's your mother.
    5. Re:Take a page from Apple by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Microsoft could follow the same pattern as Apple and redesign their operating system from the ground up with security as a primary focus.

      They did, 10 years earlier. It's called Windows NT. Apple is the one following Microsoft.

    6. Re:Take a page from Apple by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      But Apple did it right. A default installation of XP is as insecure as Win9X.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    7. Re:Take a page from Apple by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      But Apple did it right.

      With ten years of hindsight, you'd fucking well hope so.

      A default installation of XP is as insecure as Win9X.

      Difference is, an XP installation is trivially securable.

    8. Re:Take a page from Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did, 10 years earlier. It's called Windows NT. Apple is the one following Microsoft.
       
      Sorry, you're wrong. NeXTSTEP was released in 1989 and Windows NT was released in 1993. The development of Windows NT started in 1988 and the first previews of NeXTSTEP were around in 1986.

  67. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    I think it's safe to assume that all known security issues in WinXP will be fixed in Vista. Fixing vulnerabilities in the Vista beta probably doesn't have very high priority, as it's userbase is (at least supposed to be) limited.

  68. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by clodney · · Score: 1

    That is the default in Vista, and they have done significant work so that fewer things require admin access.

    And in a home environment having the machine boot up into a userland account with no password is probably not a huge hole, so long as escalating privs to admin level requires a password. That would get around the problem of requiring a login.

  69. Seamless switch? by Doc+Ri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really? No complaints other than "I miss my games"? No training required? It just worked? I have a hard time believing this.

    I am not saying that OpenBSD is a bad choice for this task from a purely technical point of view. But there must have been some problems during comissioning. It would be interesting to learn how you solved them.

    --
    617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
    1. Re:Seamless switch? by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      KDE can be easily configured to be quite Windows-like. Many people didn't even notice, to be quite honest. We did our best to make the transition as seamless as possible, and we managed to do that well.

      We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference.

      We imported the Word templates and Excel spreadsheets they were using, tested them out with the OpenOffice equivalents, and for the most part they worked. The one problem we ran into was the font on the standard company letterhead was a bit too large under OpenOffice. That took about a second or so to remedy, of course.

      When they asked about the games and MSN, they were simply told that they were deleted.

      A little bit of preparation, forethought, and the use of quality software lead to a transition that went very well.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:Seamless switch? by cosminn · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem in an office environment are apps needed. The people at the front desk here all use Windows. For the most part, the stuff they need could easily be handled by Linux. They'd even _like_ it, our lab is Linux and they would have no problem using KDE, for example. They already use Firefox, some Thunderbird, and the calendar is web-based.

      The problem that we have is that they need a couple of apps that will not run on anything _but_ Windows. We tried wine, cxoffice, they even have issues in VMWare.

      One of the apps even requires you to be on a specific Windows domain, since it's a University-wide software.

      It seems that it's getting to be more viable to switch them to OSX at the next upgrade, but I'm not convinced.

      So yea, most secretaries use a browser, and email client, but they need to use some apps that will not run on Linux, not to mention OpenBSD.

      And as much as I like OpenOffice, and I support them (I haven't used MS Office for a few years now, with the exception of helping some friends), companies can't afford to tell a client "err, this document looks really ugly when I open it with OO" or risk writing something in OO, saving it in .doc format and showing up all ugly for the company/person working with them. I'm not even going to get into .ppt...

      While for a browser, an email client, and an alternative OS it's pretty easy to get people to switch (OSX looks _nothing_ like Windows, and yet I know of nobody who has complained it's not like Windows...), training them to use _other_ programs, presuming they _do_ exist, is not as easy. If you use MS Money (or however it's called), try using GNUCash, and then notice the difference..and that's not even a major app...

    3. Re:Seamless switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit.

    4. Re:Seamless switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the placebo effect.

      I've always thought that if the labels are changed and the programs look almost the same, the average user wouldn't be able to tell. I imagine you used a WindowsXP theme, too?

    5. Re:Seamless switch? by oh_bugger · · Score: 1
      people didn't know the difference

      I expect these people were idiots

      Swapping MS Office with OpenOffice is one thing, but these people could hardly have been using their computers that much if they didn't notice there was a different operating system. In a situation where the user is doing stuff slightly more indepth, I'm sure you'd find that there would be more complaints and comments than "My MSN is missing".


      When they asked about the games and MSN, they were simply told that they were deleted.

      If they're playing games to the extent that a company has to switch users to another operating system, and then the employee turns around and asks "where's the games?", surely the answer would be more along the lines of "We don't pay you to play games (bitch!)".

      --
      Go home and shave your giant head of smell with your bad self
    6. Re:Seamless switch? by tsa · · Score: 1

      We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference.

      Really? Unbelievable. The differences are fairly easy to spot. Makes me wonder how people experience a user interface.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re:Seamless switch? by sd_diamond · · Score: 5, Funny

      We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference.

      We need to talk.

      --Sincerely,
      Microsoft Legal Dept.

    8. Re:Seamless switch? by Dogers · · Score: 1

      You could always try running the apps under Citrix, publishing the applications..?

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    9. Re:Seamless switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not a single post by CyricZ that ISN'T bullshit.

    10. Re:Seamless switch? by blingbing · · Score: 1
      "We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference."

      that's unbelievable, but i am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. Here's my question: what about "Microsoft Outlook"? I don't think you can label the Evolution icon as "Outlook" and get away with it. the look and feel is just too different.

    11. Re:Seamless switch? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I did the same thing with our secretaries, except with SuSE instead of OpenBSD. I'm sure the end result looked quite similar to CyricZ's solution.

      They scratched their heads about a few minor things, and then were quite happy with the setup.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    12. Re:Seamless switch? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      How many apps, and how much are you willing to spend?

      Codeweavers will do custom wine builds for your specific enterprise apps at reasonable price ranges (think 4 figures).

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    13. Re:Seamless switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      renaming the OO icons works great! They never even know.

    14. Re:Seamless switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get back to work, slaves!

    15. Re:Seamless switch? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Here's my question: what about "Microsoft Outlook"?
      Outlook not so good.

      To be quite serious - if the calender is not being used you are better off with a dedicated email program which doesn't store things in database that is difficult to recover things from instead of the free add on for MS Office. Outlook Express is an even nastier piece of work - as anyone who has lost all of their mail when a mailbox surpasses 2GB in size will confirm (or anyone who has had to spend many hours recovering it for them). I have to spend a surprising amount of time doing various maintainace tasks to keep the remaining five MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express users where I work going - and the resulting attachment filtering restictions to keep them safe annoy everyone else (but at least isolated the virus let in by a bad boy with a modem who decided it would be nice to get his home email from work with MS Outlook).

    16. Re:Seamless switch? by ryanov · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, Samba could be used to join those machines to the Windows domain you'd need. Not sure how Windows Networking works under wine though, if that's what you're doing.

    17. Re:Seamless switch? by ryanov · · Score: 1

      And I've heard good things about KMyMoney. I'm about to give it a shot. Who knew they all used QIF?

    18. Re:Seamless switch? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Cassic Example: Download Firefox. Apply IE Theme. Rename firefox icons to IE.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    19. Re:Seamless switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference.

      People sure are fucking stupid.

    20. Re:Seamless switch? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Then we labeled this guy sd_diamond as "Microsoft Legal Department", and again, nobody knew the difference...

    21. Re:Seamless switch? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      OO has a "save as PDF" option for when specific appearence matters. Otherwise, save as rtf, possibly with a .doc extension. There's almost no reason to send presentations out for clients to edit, and there's an open office presentation viewer which is a free little download.

      It's been my experience that *most* people don't need anything Windows specific. But you're right, there'll be some training involved if it's more than simply switching the OS underneath the Firefox and Thunderbird they're already using. When I did it, I switched the users to Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice on Windows with networked profiles first, then changed the OS when no one was looking. :)

  70. Bill and Tony by fm6 · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Sure, Microsoft adds security holes as quickly as they patch the old ones — often in the process of patching the old ones. But no matter how many times they screw up, they will always insist that they are working very hard to fix things. As indeed they are!

    I do object to the comparison with Tony Soprano. That dude has never engaged in the protection racket. Just relatively honest loan sharking, illicit gambling, fraud, armed robbery, and embezzlement. He'd never make it as a TV antihero if he were shown bullying honest shopkeepers out their hard-earned profits!

  71. Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by neuroxmurf · · Score: 0, Troll

    That's not what worries me.

    What worries me is that (a) almost everyone is running Windows XP by now and (b) Windows XP uses Product (de)Activation.

    So there is absolutely nothing stopping Microsoft from saying "Upgrade to Vista ... before we remotely and permanently disable every Windows XP installation in the world".

    And I strongly suspect that they will -- although it might be Windows UltraMegaHyperCool vs. Windows Vista instead of Vista vs. XP...

    1. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by jofi · · Score: 1
      "Upgrade to Vista ... before we remotely and permanently disable every Windows XP installation in the world".

      From the horse's mouth: Activation will not be used to force upgrades.

      Try again.

      --
      Blame the user, not the software.
    2. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by neuroxmurf · · Score: 1

      And if you believe everything Microsoft tells you, I've got this bridge for sale in Arizona...

      Anyone who has been paying attention knows that any technology that can be abused, will be abused. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

    3. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by jofi · · Score: 1
      You must be the person that chooses either all Democrats or all Republicans on a ballot. Likewise, you believe something is all bad, or all good, and nothing inbetween.

      Me, I choose inbetween. I don't blindly agree to everything they do, or like everything they do without question.

      People like are just plain assholes.

      --
      Blame the user, not the software.
    4. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by neuroxmurf · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've found that all Democrats are pretty much just as evil and inept as all Republicans (and for that matter all members of any other party.) But that really has nothing to do with the fact that technology will be abused. Microsoft is no different from any other organization in this regard. If you think that they are somehow special, well, I wish you luck in your delusional little world.

    5. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by jofi · · Score: 1
      I wish you luck in your delusional little world.

      I wish you luck in your delusional little world as well.

      --
      Blame the user, not the software.
    6. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you believe everything Microsoft tells you, I've got this bridge for sale in Arizona...

      Really? Which one?

      (Score -1, Wiseass)

    7. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by Debiant · · Score: 1

      They don't need to do that so directly and bluntly. I moved from NT to Windows 2000 because lack of USB support in former OS, about time when Windows 2000 was launched.

      I have perfectly usable Windows 2000 Pro license. But since Windows XP Home has a faster boot time, it has Windows Media Player 10 that many hanheld MP3layers need and lot sleeker look and better DirectX support I gave up with Windows 2000. I installed Windows XP Home.

      In future, all new computer will be sold with Vista, corporations will use it, drivers will use more and more Vista and due time many things will work best and maybe only on Vista. Then you have a choice do you upgrade or not. You don't have to of course, but if you plan to use latest technology and have best support & compatability, you're advised to do it. Microsoft and vendors of all sort will make it so, because all gain lot for people changing to new OS.

      As a sidenote, I think the 'limited user account idea' is already dead. In a school where I study, security is so tight, Windows profiles don't migrate from desktop to another. On the other hand, the Windows XP that installed for my dada(where he had previously Windows 2000) I gladly gave him full right to install and damage himself. I don't want to be always running to his side when something needs to be installed, and I doubt will many home users either. Most users will run with admin rights, because it's far more comfortable than to exist as limited user.

      So what's the diffrence to current situation MS is offering really?

      If Microsoft wants similar system as linux has with superuser, it's not an technical issue with OS but more social issue how people work with operating system. People already have expectations and ways they work with Windows. If Vista doesn't bring lot good things with but lot of restricting things instead, people won't adopt it and it will flop.

      Looking the list of changes that was int the articke, I see multiple ways to:

      a) create new security vulnerabilities
      b) annoy users as some good security idea stops them doing something they want to do
      c) create more bugs generally as building traps and sensors within system just complicates it

      Just now Vista looks in paper like overloaded and overweight bodyguard with stereoids.

      --
      Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows has the trouble seen me, even I sometimes wonder why I write these line
    8. Re:Upgrade to Vista ... or else. by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between believing everything they tell you, and believing something that's quite believable.

      A company would have to be absolutely insane - SCO level insane - to try something like that, without at least giving you pre-warning by stating that the licenses were time limited.

      So I think it's quite reasonable to believe that product activation will not be used to force upgrades. Especially when they have flat out said it will not be.

      Now promises as to shipping dates, quality, features and security - THOSE I take with a grain of salt.

      But the world is most definitely not black and white.
      I can be not with you, without being for Microsoft (or the terrorists either for that matter)

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  72. Occurences of the word "else" by jofi · · Score: 1
    Only:

    "TrackBack See links from elsewhere to this story."

    Don't show your weakness to the enemy (and I am not talking to Microsoft)...

    --
    Blame the user, not the software.
  73. Migrate to Linux, not Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Migrate to Linux, not Vista

    Our company did last year, city of Vienna did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.

    No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve some level of vendor independence all at the same time.

  74. Heck, I am still running Windows NT 4.0 and 95b... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and Microsoft still cannot give me one compelling reason to upgrade to one of their newer, bloated OSes. Considering that I do not use any USB devices and despise Internet Explorer, these OSes work fine for me. If by some chance I do need USB support in the future, I could always dual boot Windows 98lite and 2000lite. However, I think that will be the end of the Microsoft line for me, as I am gradually transitioning completely to Linux.

    It's safe to say that by the time Vista comes out (whenever that is), I will be completely on Linux by that point. I am gradually finding Microsoft's OSes to be more and more futile every day, since I can do everything on Linux that used to "require" some form of Windows.

  75. You will probably... by Hymer · · Score: 1

    ...wake one morning with a horses head in your bed.

  76. vista or die by chasingporsches · · Score: 1

    i think they should hire Puffy or P. Diddy or whatever his name is this week. "vista or die! the world is changing, and only you can make a change. if you don't vista, you won't have a say in how the world works. one vista makes a difference."

  77. Re:Security Ad Nausem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And beyond that it's probably safer to use something like BEOS instead of OpenBSD. It not only has a far more stable and secure base, but it also has far stricter security-wise development policies, and apparently more thorough code audits.

    Please, stay on target!

  78. Or else what? by hkb · · Score: 1

    Oh? Switch to a Mac?

    Done.

    Bye bye.

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  79. Re:Isn't XP secure? Is MS selling defective softwa by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    Of course, but everything is different where there is a computer involved.

    If I tried to sell you a car and then charge you another ton each for the seat belts, that would be illegal, right? because seat belts save lives {and, coincidentally, save the taxpayer money}. If I sold you a gas boiler and someone standing outside the house could shut it off -- or blow it up -- by doing something unless you bought an optional safety device costing £50, that would be illegal, right? because gas appliances are supposed to work as far as possible and fail safely.

    The whole concept of "fitness for purpose" seems to have had as much effect on computer software as the Reformation had on Spain. Windows, with its focus on apparent ease-of-use at the expense of all else, sells because people don't want to believe that sometimes, doing something properly is hard.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  80. vista = end of the line for my PC by hazem · · Score: 1

    'I'd hate to see something bad happen to your PC,'

    Well, getting Vista only means one thing - scrapping my current PC. It's already been made clear that Vista won't run on my computer. Vista doesn't make my computer more secure - it kills it.

    I say, "no thanks". My computer works just fine.

    Sadly, I won't be shocked at all the idiots waiting outside the stores until midnight when they launch it.

  81. Linux viruses by kuzelnik · · Score: 1

    If you write windows virus, you are one of thousands people that wrote a virus that actually works.

    If you manage to write successfull Linux virus, you will be THE FIRST hacker to do that.
    You will get famous. Very famous.
    This fact is very, very big motivation for many people.
    Yet there are no real Linux viruses.

  82. From a sysadmin's perspective by toadlife · · Score: 2

    ...I really don't care what Microsoft's marketing line regarding Vista is. I already know what improvements Vista brings to the table, as do most other IT people who manage large numbers of Windows machines. As for home users, is marketing to them really all that necessary? The vast majority will get Vista by default when they get a new PC - and the vast majority of them won't even realize it, much less care about it.

    As it is right now, Win2k and WinXP are fairly easy to manage on a large scale as long as you don't let everyone have admin rights to their local machines. Upgrading is out of the question in most corporate environments, because it cost too much money for what it's worth. Like the Joe Users of the world, Vista will appear when it starts coming on our new computers. Like 2000>XP, the XP>Vista transition will take at least three years, during which time we will have mixture of OS's out there.

    There one time where we actually did upgrade existing computers was when we moved from Win9x to Win2000. The benefits of running 2000 on the desktop were so great in terms of time saved on support that it was worth it to us.

    As for XP>Vista, I've seen the beta's and the new security features are nice, but as I said before managing 2000/XP is not a big problem and I don't see any reason to upgrade existing machines. IMO, the improvements in Vista are going to be the greatest for home users and IT shops that don't know what the hell they are doing. Those improvements still won't save users from themselves - but no OS can do that.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  83. Not just social problems, my friend. by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    You didn't read my post. While the game playing was indeed a social problem, the malware problem was an even more significant technical issue.

    It was indeed the higher security of OpenBSD, Konqueror, and the other software we used that helped improve the problem of malware. Blame it on the popularity of Windows all that you want; since the transition, we have not had to go back and clean up an infected system yet.

    You must not have worked in a real office of any significant size. Policy rules like you suggest don't always work. People will keep playing Solitare, for instance, until it is deleted from the system. A better solution is to use a system that doesn't include such distractions in the first place, and makes it even more difficult for the average user to install them if they are that desperate.

    That said, even from just a technical standpoint, OpenBSD was the right decision to make. It has saved the company time and money, offering a return far greater than the initial and ongoing investment.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Not just social problems, my friend. by VividU · · Score: 1

      No, I read your post. It's not Solitaire I was talking about but the those silly internet based games and "cute stuff" that are the source of so much malware.

      "Blame it on the popularity of Windows all that you want; since the transition, we have not had to go back and clean up an infected system yet."

      But thats my point - there is no malware of any significance for non Windows system and your kidding yourself if you think it's becaue BSD is more "secure". Sure MS design is a factor, but so is 90%+ market penetration. The point being, the other OS's have never had the big guns on them - those well financed, smart, overseas bad actors who are out to make a buck.

      To use a military analogy: As far as battlefield target go, if Windows is a aircraft carrier, BSD is a paper boat*.

      *This is purely a market analogy and not based on the technical merits of BSD - which are admirable.

    2. Re:Not just social problems, my friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS. Apache has a 70% market share to IIS's 20%.

      IIS is hacked far more often.

    3. Re:Not just social problems, my friend. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...As far as battlefield target go, if Windows is a aircraft carrier, BSD is a paper boat*.....

      Who cares WHY other OS are safer today! Who cares WHY thieves don't break into my house! Maybe I have better locks or live in a low crime neighborhood, have a mean sounding dog, or live next to a police station. Maybe they just don't like my stuff as well as others. The bottom line is that my house is safer so far and so are other OS than Windows. If, or when, there is ONE nasty virus for OSX in the wild, that is one tenth as mean as anything seen on Windows so far, maybe , just maybe I might start sleeping a little less soundly, at least until Apple comes out with a solution.

      --
      All theory is gray
    4. Re:Not just social problems, my friend. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Does it make a difference? I mean who gives a shit if it gets the job done?

  84. Just say no. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    I for one will not use Vista. It's time to just put my foot down and stop the madness. I'm no longer going to let Microsoft control me, make me suffer, make me waste my time. Taking control of my computer and letting someone else control my computer is just going to far. I'll keep XP for testing in IE for a while - otherwise it's Linux and OS X for my future.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  85. WoW replacement by arthas · · Score: 1

    I don't think there is any kind of WoW replacement. Obviously we need to develop massively multiplayer version of Nethack...

  86. MS Has Gone Backwards Since Windows 2000 by LazloToth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The saddest aspect of Vista's arrival, as far as I'm concerned, is that XP technology has been no improvement over Win2k Pro or Win2k Server in our company. And now we get another scary OS release from MS as the end-of-life date for 2000 products draws near. After SP4 came out for the 2000 products, the only real annoyance was the constant stream of critical updates, some of which unleashed mayhem on our network until we got a handle on update management. Otherwise, the Windows 2000 servers have been rock solid. Meanwhile, XP and Server 2003 have been insufferable turkeys, making me regret every installation. The memory leaks that have plagued Server 2003 should be getting a lot more attention than they've been getting in the tech press. I suspect Microsoft would say that hardware vendors have delivered faulty drivers, but we never saw the random crashes and reboots in Windows 2000 Server that we see in our 2003 servers. I can't trust the 2003 platform anymore - - we moved everything of importance back to Win2k. Service Pack 1 for 2003 Server was about as helpful as a broken ankle. I understand we might see SP2 in 2007. Wow, that's encouraging. Who here wants to dive for Vista? Thank the gods for Linux, Apache, and MySQL . . . .

    --


    It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
  87. Ever used OS X? by Dlugar · · Score: 1

    Ever used OS X?

    --
    Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
  88. Use Linux or else.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use Linux or else die with Vista/XP

  89. Features Security by TwilightXaos · · Score: 1

    As I mentioned in another post, Vista will ship with Windows Collaboration, a Groove-like networking feature that lets wireless users quickly form ad-hoc network and share files and even screen real estate in an easy way.

    I for one am not thrilled about this. I assume this will be enabled by default, which opens the question of security. Especially given But (and I'm a little unclear on this) even then it will still be sending a trickle of power to the memory only to keep the memory alive. Which i assume could mean that someone could still open a ad hoc network with my laptop as it "hibernates" in my bag. I understand that this won't be how it is supposed to work, however I wonder how long it takes for someone to figure out how to do this.

    Also, what if I want to share files with my friend sitting next to me so I form a ad hoc network. Then, some one who I don't want to get my files creates an ad hoc network and since my files are shared wirelessly, how can I prevent the third party from getting my files. Given the range of the 802g protocol I may not even see the third person. If there will be some authentication on this system, how will it work? Is this where the plugin crypto comes in? If it is, how do me and my friend exchange keys and passwords? If we just use symmetric algorithms, anyone could get the file by over hearing me tell my friend the password. If it uses Asymmetric ones, how do we exchange keys? If we have a USB drive or something for that, couldn't we just as simply use that for the files?

    Also, how will the projectors work any better than they do now. I have seen people fail at getting a PowerPoint presentation up when they had all the cables, and Microsoft has no control over development of third party projectors that may or may not support this new feature so I expect the same problems.

    This is not to be on a anti Microsoft pedestal, per se. My point in posting this is: I have not herd of these features before your post, and I figured that you might be able to provide answers to these question more easily then me finding them on my own. References to where you got the info would be appropriate, so I can learn on my own.

    Thanks for reading all this, if you did.

  90. How about this one by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Upgrade or keep crashing was the tagline when Windows XP was introduced

    Vista: "Upgrade and crash differently"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  91. Re:Yes, they charge for it. However... by j_f_chamblee · · Score: 1

    I think you will have hard time, finding *anyone*, slashdotter or not, who likes the pain of going through a Windows upgrade. Most of my colleagues are stuck with M$ because of our application domains. Our industry standard geographic information system software, ESRI ArcGIS, doesn't run on anything but Windows and Solaris. Given the options to
    A) upgrade the OS in our labs from one flavor of Windows to the next
    or B) undergo a root canal,

    I think most would take the trip to the dentist. At least that way, you know you are back working in a day or so.

    --
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
  92. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Actually, SUSE 10.0 allows one to boot without the messages.

  93. Interesting implications of a security focus... by samj · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft have to get people thinking about security to sell their next version of Windows, yet you can be sure it will remain insecure and people will start considering alternatives. And I'm not just talking about Linux/BSD/etc in their current form; I'm talking about multi-level secure systems on home computers, with browsers/email/etc in one virtualised environment, and productivity software with access to data in another, and very little interaction between the two. People will start to care about their data (if not their privacy) and they'll be competing in an area that they are currently not in any way competitive in (security).

  94. Sounds like 2001 all over again. by shumacher · · Score: 1

    I remember the cries about XP. "It won't support MP3! It will keep the music I rip in DRM-Protected WMA!"

    I like XP. There. I said it. I like Windows XP. I use Yahoo Music Engine to fill my MTP music player with rented music. I code in .NET 2.0. Starz on Real lets me download DRM-locked video. I play GTA III. I think Microsoft has some good software. I've even worked in a Microsoft environment.

    I am not a Microsoft fanboy. I have used Macs in the past. I have used Linux in the past. Right now, I have several pieces of hardware that are not likely to get signed drivers from their vendors. If Microsoft keeps their hard-line on unsigned drivers, I will probably not move to Vista. I bought my current laptop because it will support Vista, but I am not afraid to stay on XP until it no longer serves me, and I am not afraid to go back to Linux.

  95. In Soviet Russia, Windows Vista is secure from you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, Windows Vista is secure from you.

  96. Upgrade to Vista (TM) or be sued by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "Due to poor upgrade sales, we have decided to activate the disclaimer in the EULA where we retain the right to change the terms of the license at any time, with no legal recourse available to the consumer.

    Therefore, we are now invalidating all licenses for Windows (TM) that are of a version older then 'vista'(TM).

    Please be advised that continued use of any unlicensed product will result in legal action, as we take our IP rights seriously.

    Furthermore, all copies of Windows (TM) that have been previously inalled now come with a 'drop dead date' where they will no longer function. This date is July 1 2006. To continue to access your data and valuable MSN account, please purchase a legal upgrade before this time.

    Thanks for choosing Microsoft (TM)"

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  97. Re:Features Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thanks for reading all this, if you did.

    You're welcome! Though I must admit to zoning out during the 3rd paragraph.

  98. hmm by majortom1981 · · Score: 1

    Everybody keeps saying security this and that . Last time I checked most errors that people get are because of the poor programming of an application that you are using not the os it self. People run as administrators because most applications (cough the sims 2) need to be run as administrator . Also a lot of the things people wish that can be done with windows atleast networking and security I have been learning are there in Windows XP they are just really well hidden (no clue why) I have never had windows itself crash. All the crashes in windows xp were due to programs that are poorly coded. Some virus scanners in windows are poorly coded and caused some bugs that you would think are due to the op system itself. Mcaffee Virus scan is very buggy. I have noticed so is symantec anti virus . People are balming microsoft for things that they should be blaming on the application writers. The main problem is that microsoft allows code writers to be lazy.

  99. vista audio changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Regarding Application level audio control. Your side comment is exactly right. The audio system is getting overhauled so each application's audio is treated as a separate stream. They are mixed together in a user-mode driver with seperate volume controls for each stream. No more problems with overly loud webpages disrupting you while listening to mp3's, just mute firefox. Mixer plugins for audio effects may also be possible.


    I haven't heard how DRM concerned apps will handle this. Perhaps they will use the new low level api (WASAPI) to avoid the central mixer. But I hope not.


    And I disagree about usermode drivers being insecure. Permission to access their address space will still be secured by the kernel and they won't have access to the hardware or kernel objects. The only difference is that bugs in them no longer BSOD the system. Better for users, better for developers.

  100. vista security by slashk · · Score: 0

    when windows 95 came along, everyone complained about stability
    since win2k/xp, stability is less of an issue
    now security is in the spotlight

    ms is focusing on the security factor more than ever before.
    they have at least doubled the amount of time required for dev projects simply to handle security concerns.
    their internal processes have changed significantly to incorporate security reviews, notably what they call 'thread modelling'

    heck, i knew one developer at MS who spent 8 months doing thread modelling on an API that didn't even have any IPC whatsoever - just a flat library.
    8 months!
    why? well, it is commonly used, so they made the investment.

    what i'm trying to say is that MS has invested money into areas where they feel the most pain.
    stability has been 1 before, and they improved it significantly (not perfectly).
    security is where they are making new investments, and it will pay off for them, but i still wouldn't expect perfect security

    but, the security situation in vista well be better, i'm almost certain.

    and with WCF, they have probably gone overboard on security.
    but that's another story

  101. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
    Users then don't trash everything when they fubar their profile or homedir.

    For most users, trashing their profile or homedir IS trashing everything. The OS can be reinstalled quickly, but having to pick your way through your home directory selecting only what's needed and making sure you don't back up any crap takes time.

    Windows has all the necessary features to do it, It's had them since the first versions of NT.

    Disagree - to correctly sandbox software you really need something like SELinux, which is arguably still in the research stages.

  102. Re:Security Ad Nausem by Mancat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, let's use an operating system that's deader than OS/2. Surely it will work out just fine, and we'll never encounter any issues that will require support - which, of course, doesn't exist. But that's fine, since it's "secure."

    --
    hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
  103. the whole Article by dzafez · · Score: 1

    is one flaimebait! Why can't we Moderate the Article?

    1. Re:the whole Article by jofi · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Slashdot is one big flamebait.

      They spread FUD about the competition more than they boast about what Linux or open source can actually do. Then they take something positive about the competition and turn it into FUD. That says to me that open source/Linux apologists have something to fear, otherwise they wouldn't have this attitude. I'm not an MS apologist, i'm just a person who sees people acting like prepubescent children.

      --
      Blame the user, not the software.
  104. A, diss is a nice office youz got here... by coastin · · Score: 1

    I notice you PCs are still runnin XP, hmmm...

    Perhaps youz otta tinka bout upgradin ta Vista before youz find youself sleepin wit the little fishes on da screensaver, capiche!

    --
    I lost my sig...
  105. I plan on helping microsoft... by anethema · · Score: 1

    By pirating vista on as many computers as me and my friends use. We always said this is a good thing for MS right?

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  106. Good joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny how OUR 2003 servers are FAR more stable than 2k has EVER been (as a matter of fact, 2k is the single most problematic OS I've ever seen coming from MS, at the beginning, the drivers for most hardware sucked REAL BAD, so BSODs all the fucking time! It essentially made the whole OS worthless when it came out). Drivers for 2k aren't so bad anymore, but it's still nowhere near as stable as 2003 is (SP1 or not). No problems with 2003 R2 so far either.

    Bashing a clearly more stable OS, and then being thankful for a toyish DB? Wow. 100% FUD.

    1. Re:Good joke... by LazloToth · · Score: 1

      Do you even work in this industry? Right tool, right job. MySQL a toy? Tell that to NASA.

      --


      It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
    2. Re:Good joke... by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1

      And Yahoo. And Wikipedia. And LiveJournal. And Amazon. And...

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

  107. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by cosminn · · Score: 1
    Also it said that there are lots of apps out there that just check for admin access on startup but don't need it, just that the developers was lazy by not checking wether it ran on limited accounts. In those cases, Vista default will be to report to the program that it's running with admin priviledges, but actually run it with limited priviledges.

    Yes, I heard of that also. Although I commend MS on _finally_ having regular users, and not admin-by-default users, this is a bit scary. How do they know, out of the tens of thousands of apps out there that check for admin access, if they _really_ need access.

    This seems pretty broken to me. I can already see apps:
     
    app: Am I admin?
    Windows: Sure
    app: function_that_needs_admin_priviledge()
    **BOINK**
     
    Would you like to send Microsot a report with this problem?
    Pretending what to do, and having this OS decide when to send out "fake" answers is not, in my opinion, a pretty clean thing to do...
  108. Obligatory South Park reference by TheGSRGuy · · Score: 1

    As long as P Diddy doesn't come after me with his entourage singing, "Upgrade or die mothafucka."

  109. I don't think your position makes any sense.. by bmajik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is security a binary thing? Is something secure or insecure ?

    I don't think so.

    I think "security" is a blend of many things.. the _correctness_ of non-security features, the selection and depth of security-focused features, the process around resolving defects (because there will be defects), and the conditions under which a user can use the machine.

    Even if Microsoft had done everything they knew how to do to make XP "secure" when they had made it, would it be secure today? No. Because today new threats are understood and being used that weren't in existance when XP was designed and shipped. Is XP retroactively insecure? Or it just less secure than something newer, all things otherwise equal, that was developed with the context of the threats that have emerged since XP was released?

    In the specific case of Vista vs XP, some of the things that are "better" this time around are
    - more credible run-as-non-admin story
    - better sandboxing and least-priviledge stuff, even within a normal user account (i.e. its not necessarily true that IE running as you can do anything you can)

    The run-as-non-admin thing "worked" in XP, but with enough caveats that it was hard to credibly say "everyone, do it that way". The POR for XP was to ship with non-admin-by-default until very, very late in the ship cycle, where there was just too much stuff that didn't work as non-admin. They made the hard decisino to make users=admin by default, and nobody was happy about it. This is a problem that Microsoft has been chipping away at for a while now, because the goal is "let everyone run with as few permissions as possible" and it often conflicts with the other goal of "20 year old software written by 3rd party people needs to keep running"

    I have no problem buying that Vista has more security-focused features than XP. I have no problem buying that Vista has better code correctness in non-security features than XP. I don't think the security response process will be any worse in vista, infact, i know of at least one technology that makes it better (but im not sure if its public yet?).

    Will Vista be "more secure" than XP? I think so. Will it be "as secure" as OpenBSD? Probably not. Will it do more things that more users want than OpenBSD? Definiately. Will Vista have a better intersection of practical security vs functionality than OpenBSD?

    Microsoft thinks so, and I think I agree with them.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:I don't think your position makes any sense.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right click on any icon and click "run as". Problem with running older software solved. If it happens more often "Set Program Access and Defaults" works wonders.

      Pardon me, but I'm just a little bit bitter with MS right now (and symantec) because I spent 2 weeks fighting a keylogging virus that attached to all .exe files on the system. Symantec didn't have definitions to detect the application part of it until a week after (even though it was submitted) and it was another week before they were able to actually clean the .exe files.

      Makes one really happy when a keylogger gets onto a mortgage broker network, doesn't it? It's not like all of a person's information could be stolen that way or anything. But it makes one happier when a "trusted" antivirus vendor can't remove something THAT hazardous in a timely manner. Of course it would have been a moot point if

      A) users were setup as users instead of administrators (not my fault and it's fixed now).
      B) Windows was a bit more secure against viruses.
      C) Specialty software wasn't written for only one OS and/or using proprietary crap like MS SQL.
      D) Companies who write software that isn't client/server apps don't tell their customers that they ahve to be installed in a client/server manner.

  110. That's nonsense by spitzak · · Score: 1

    Hey I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but saying it is in their interest to make it insecure is silly. If they want to, they can force people to upgrade by adding functionality or changing things so older systems can interface with new systems.

    I'm sure they would love to make it secure, as the average person does not know anything wrong with Microsoft except "it's got security bugs". A fixed version would in fact remove 100% of the negative things the average person knows about Microsoft.

    1. Re:That's nonsense by demon · · Score: 1

      But he's right - that's how Microsoft makes their money, keeping people on the upgrade treadmill. "Oh no, Windows [version] is all kinds of hosed up, we know... but all those issues will be fixed in Windows [version++]! And it'll make your breakfast and give you blowjobs too!" You'll note how with *every* new Windows version, Microsoft's marketing is along those lines - and they always claim the new version will cure all ills. Strangely, it never does.

      And really, if they made the *perfect* version of Windows, that really had *all* the security issues fixed, yes, they'd get people upgrading to it - but what would be the draw for the next version? How can you improve on that? No one would upgrade. Microsoft would be killing that continuing revenue stream of upgraders. That's why it's not in their financial interest - and you know, they have to do everything they can to maximize profits, since they're a publicly-traded company...

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  111. Buy this OS or we shoot the dog by scotty1024 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I installed a fresh copy (no pun intended) of Windows XP SP2 from MSDN on VIrtual PC 7 (after trying Vista and learning you can't install Vista on VIrtual PC on a Mac either...) and did my usual defrag after instal. Only 9,000 files. Can you believe it? I hadn't remembered how little one actually gets from MS for $199.

    So yeah, they need to do something like the old magazine cover and print the picture of a dog on the front of the box with a Dirty Harry gun pointed at it. They certainly don't put much inside the box to get you to buy it...

  112. Little known fact by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Quote from the Slashdot article: "Even if new features won't get you to upgrade to Vista, you should buy Vista for the security, urged Windows Chief Jim Allchin."

    Most people don't know that there is no actual person named Allchin. That is just a nickname for Jabba the Hutt, All Chin.

    When he is not assuring that their will be terrible security vulnerabilities in the present version of Windows, so that Microsoft will be able to sell the next version, Mr. "AllChin" Hutt eats cute squeaky live animals.

    I want you to know that this comment has the same editorial accuracy for which Slashdot is famous.

  113. Re:Yes, they charge for it. However... by HolyCoitus · · Score: 1

    Or you can get a distribution that will upgrade itself without needing you to wipe all the user files.

    --
    That's scary.
  114. Re:Features Security by EvanED · · Score: 1

    I for one am not thrilled about this. I assume this will be enabled by default, which opens the question of security.

    Why do you assume this?

    Microsoft takes a lot of flac for security things. They deserve a lot of it. But even MS is learning not to leave things open by default. Remember the whole RPC vulnerability? IIRC they turned that off by default in SP2.

    Even in the first release of XP you had to explicily allow remote desktop connections, and had to okay all of the remote support requests. I don't remember any RD vulnerabilities.

    If it is, how do me and my friend exchange keys and passwords? If we just use symmetric algorithms, anyone could get the file by over hearing me tell my friend the password. If it uses Asymmetric ones, how do we exchange keys

    Via any of the methods that you EVER use to exchange keys.

    For instance, use Diffie-Hellman to set up a symmetric key. Won't provide authentication so you're subject to a man-in-the-middle attack, but if you have reason to believe that you're in wireless range you might be able to get away without.

  115. Just found a dead horse's head in my bed... by Kunt · · Score: 0

    ...now I know buying into Windows was a mistake all along!

  116. And then by arthas · · Score: 1

    And then you are going to fucking bury them.

  117. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by dbIII · · Score: 1
    The default privilege level is administrator; but unlike root on a unix system, there are certain actions that are blocked from even an administrator on a Windows system.
    That's right - you get the worst of both worlds due to ad-hoc additions to the security system instead of a consistent behaviour.
  118. Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur by toadlife · · Score: 1

    I've heard that Vista will silently redirect attempted writes to sensitive areas to the users space on the fly. So if the user clicks on an installer that doesn't ask for the admin password, and the installer tries to write files to the Program Files dir and registry entries to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software hive, Vista will redirect the files to the users profile directory and the registry keys to HKEY_LOCAL_USER\Software.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  119. What about the 'y' ? by this+great+guy · · Score: 1
    --
    Srry, 'm brk cllg stdnt nd dn't hv th mny t by vwls.

    Does that mean you shoplifted the 'y' ?

    1. Re:What about the 'y' ? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Does that mean you shoplifted the 'y' ?

      Student loan. ;)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  120. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by dioscaido · · Score: 1

    You are right. And Vista is the first MS OS to be doing just that. Which is why this headline is so confusing... Vista will be more secure... It's the first MS OS that's really designed for security, sometimes *gasp* at the price of user friendliness. XP SP2 was just hacked on to XP too late in the game. Win2k3 has many less vulnerabilities thanks to the improvements in dev practices, but it still has the fundamental priviledge problem you mention (priviledges are there, but everyone runs as admin). Vista is build off of the win2k3 codebase, with full LUA support. Honestly, if you are forced to run Windows, Vista would be the best option just because of LUA.

  121. Are commercials featuring Tony Soprano next? by smchris · · Score: 1

    Would be truth in advertising. They've already got companies paying so-called "software assurance" money.

  122. Re:Read this or the terrorists have already won . by grolschie · · Score: 1
    Microsoft can stick the DRM in the orifice of their choice
    Obviously not their own. :-)
  123. Just wondering ... by resonantblue · · Score: 1

    Since when did it become a "or else" statement when a company offers more reliability or security in a new version. That should be the goal of every company when they introduce a subsequent release. This is almost like saying "buy the new version or else ... you won't get the new features." Well, that's kind of obvious. Let's also remember that every software has flaws and that many of Windows security changes have been driven by a new landscape on the internet which came with new threats. Or maybe I'll just remember I'm not slashdot and no matter what I say I'll just get a mod down.

  124. clarification by toadlife · · Score: 1

    I meant newer Hauppauge cards.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  125. Too Late by TheUz · · Score: 1

    I just did my first ubuntu install. Holy cow.

    Everything. Just. Worked.

    Out of the box video, sound, networking, and ...
    PRINTING!

    I'm actually kind of upset about printing. Getting a unix machine to print is a rite of passage, much like your first sendmail implementation. Some magic words, and arcane finger wagglings ... more magic words, delivered a bit more emphatically, and BEHOLD! I have made this boxen printeth! I have the powah!

    Well, the ubuntu guys scripted that all out, somehow. =\

    To continue...

    No drivers to install. No cd key. No DRM. No viruses. No spyware.

    I'm free to change the hardware as often as I like, without having to phone ubuntu for permission.

    I'm free to add software without rebooting.

    Games just aren't worth it anymore. I'd rather have a functional computer.

    Why would anyone pay to be abused by microsoft?

    --
    ^..^
  126. So... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Okay, if you're using Windows for anything but work and maybe Media Player, you know you're asking for trouble. Years of bitching and whining does little to change anything. This is getting fairly silly. New exploit comes out. Media covers exploit. IT community bemoans MS for not being more proactive. Linux and UNIX geeks bask in the glow of a screen viewing an OS completely uneffected by the exploit. MS patches vulnerability. We're all placated until the next exploit comes along then we all bitch again. OH! And then MS says, "The next Windows, Man, that's gonna solve all this shit. Hunger, peace, global warming, everything! Go buy it!" Blah...frickin'...blah...frickin'...blah. If you're tired, switch. It's really that simple.

  127. "because they like making progress" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good theory, but this does leave us toiling to explain how every version of windows (including the security-tastic Vista) has required a patch for an exploit in code dating from windows 3.*.

    Don't confuse rebranding with progress. We can only worry over the balance of influence over Microsoft's products between their marketing department and their developers..

    Progress is a good thing, but in some circles money is considered better.

  128. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by majest!k · · Score: 1

    I think Windows with passwords is going to be a bit like a pale imitation of KDE.

    Yeah. Windows imitates KDE. Right.

    --
    smattawichu
  129. time for a new tune? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it time ms tried a different publicity campaign? I mean really, how often can you run the same, tired old "our last os was about as secure as a treehouse in a thunderstorm[1], but we've fixed that so you'ld better upgrade" line. Lemme see, it was run for: win98, win98se, win2k, various versions of winnt and most recently winxp (probably missed some, but you get the picture). Surely the public aren't gullible enough to fall for this *again*[2].

    [1] I'm sure there's an appropriate cliche I could have used here - just not sure what it is :)
    [2] ok, so we all know that they are. But we can dream.

  130. Resistance is futile. You will be assimulated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Resistance is futile. You will be assimulated...

  131. We're still using NT4 domain controllers by argent · · Score: 1

    For fire-and-forget servers, NT 3.51 was probably the peak. NT4 brought GDI into the kernel, which was fine for desktops but daft for servers, and 2000 brought in a new domain model that was incompatible with standard DNS for long enough that there was really no point going back and upgrading them once that got worked out.

    We don't have any 3.51 kit left, but we have a few NT4 servers handling an old NT4 domain.

    2000 was pretty good, for Windows, once you got past the "we're going to make everyone's domains obsolete" arrogance.

    XP... I don't see the point. Terminal Server makes remote maintainance easier, but so does VNC, and concurrent multiuser Windows is a fool's game. Other than making the Citrix-style remote desktop standard, XP really isn't significantly different from 2000.

    1. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by toadlife · · Score: 1

      XP added alot more in terms of remote management capabilities, like more WMI objects to interface with, and with SP2, firewall policies that can be set via AD. For laptops that are taken off site an onto foriegn networks, XP *is* signifigantly better than 2k.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    2. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by argent · · Score: 1

      The only remote management support Microsoft has added that I've found at all useful is Interix. The rest of the stuff requires that you run your network the way Microsoft says you should run your network... it's the same problem that we had with Windows 2000 in the first place: Microsoft bundles together things that are useful and things that are positively counterproductive, and you can't get the one without the other.

      And just to make it more fun, Microsoft screwed up the design of their port of Berkeley sockets to NT, and didn't fix the problem when they re-implemented it, so they can't run services from an inetd-style superserver. If they did that, you could control access to services without a firewall, and do it in a fine-grained manner... instead, you get viruses using the remote management interface to propogate and you can't block them on your own network (let alone a foreign one) without disabling the management services you want to use to push your firewall rules over.

      The bottom line is, you can't use these tools effectively without running your network Microsoft's way, and Microsoft's way just asking for trouble.

      Oh well, at least it makes the virus-writing freaks happy.

    3. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by toadlife · · Score: 1

      So basically, you are complaing that Windows isn't UNIX.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    4. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by toadlife · · Score: 1

      "And just to make it more fun, Microsoft screwed up the design of their port of Berkeley sockets to NT, and didn't fix the problem when they re-implemented it, so they can't run services from an inetd-style superserver. If they did that, you could control access to services without a firewall, and do it in a fine-grained manner..."

      Have you tried using IPSEC? Or is not acceptable to control access to services using it since it's 'the Microsoft way'?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    5. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by argent · · Score: 1

      Have you tried using IPSEC?

      IPSEC doesn't solve the problem that all services listen on any interface and you can't limit them to the inside interface or to localhost, so the distinction between IPSEC and a firewall from a network security standpoint is almost none. It provides for privacy and confidentiality while an IPSEC connection is established, but you still need a firewall to protect services from the local network when using local resources (for example, local web-based services at a conference center or hotel, local printers at an office), and it doesn't (AFAIK) provide a way to limit access to SMS from potentially infected computers on the same virtual network.

    6. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by argent · · Score: 1

      You are aware that you can use IPSEC and packet filter firewalls on UNIX as well, right? There's nothing essentially "Windows" about these, they weren't even implemented there first.

      The first problem is that in Windows you *have to* use them, because there's no other way to keep Windows Networking based services from listening on all enabled interfaces.

      On UNIX these are a second layer of protection. It's called "defense in depth".

      The second problem is that they don't filter based on service, but on port, so once you let Windows Networking through everything that uses named pipes is wide open.

    7. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by toadlife · · Score: 1

      First of all, sorry for making two replies to your original comment. My trigger finger went off a little too quickly.

      Yes, I know that IPSEC isn't a windows only thing. I like UNIX-type OSs, (particularly FreeBSD) and the flexibility they gives you over Windows, but my point was, while Windows does give you less flexibility, it does give you the tools that are needed to get the job done.

      You talk about limiting access to services on a local network - well that's exactly what I use it for. For example, I've got a MS SQL server with very sensitive info on it. I have an IPSEC policy on it that denies access to the sql server port for everyone except one machine, and with that one machine all communication must be authneticated with a shared key. When SQL Slammer came out a few years back, we had a SQL server onsite that was being maintained by a third party contrator and of course, they left the damn thing unpatched and wide open and it got infected. It blasted our internal network (to point of creating a DoS situation), but my SQL server, which wasn't pacthed (/me slaps myself on the hand for that) wasn't touched.

      Other usefull things you can do on a domain are require kerberos authentication for sensitive Windows ports like (139,225,1025), so only clients that are domain members can talk to eachother on these ports. You would set up your servers to allow unautheticated communications (so the clients can get their policies from the DC) and make it mandatory for clients. This would keep rogue infected machines that are infected with the latest windows network worm from infecting your clients machines.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    8. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by argent · · Score: 1

      For example, I've got a MS SQL server with very sensitive info on it. I have an IPSEC policy on it that denies access to the sql server port for everyone except one machine, and with that one machine all communication must be authneticated with a shared key.

      That works (as I said) for port-based services, and similar techniques are available for packet-filtering firewalls, though it does open you up to attack if you have to open up your configuration for any reason.

      It doesn't help with services that use Windows Networking, because they all run over the same port, using different named pipes. If you could bind the service to a specific interface that wouldn't be an issue.

      Other usefull things you can do on a domain are require kerberos authentication for sensitive Windows ports like (139,225,1025), so only clients that are domain members can talk to eachother on these ports.

      Heh.

      After we got merged into the company domain, most of the virus problems we've had have come from infected computers in the same domain. :) And of course about the most common reason I've seen for people to hook their computers into a foreign LAN... is printing, and that's one of the oldest Windows Networking functions out there.

    9. Re:We're still using NT4 domain controllers by toadlife · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't help with services that use Windows Networking, because they all run over the same port, using different named pipes. If you could bind the service to a specific interface that wouldn't be an issue."

      Ok I get your gripe. Backup Exec comes to mind.

      "After we got merged into the company domain, most of the virus problems we've had have come from infected computers in the same domain"

      Ahh yes. Laptops and foreign networks - the bane of every IT dude's existence.

      We were hit with Blaster a couple of years back when it came out and laptops were what brought it in on Monday. I had procrastinated on deploying WUS so all of our machines were bent over with the lube in hand.

      What we did (besides deploying WUS immediately) was set a AD firewall policy that turns the firewall on with no exceptions allowed if the computer is not connected to our network. With that, even local admins can't change the firewall settings without removing the computer from the domain. No one has ever complained about it. I was ticked that Microsoft didn't backport the firewall capabilities in XP clients to Win2k, but we don't have too many 2k laptops so it wasn't too huge an issue.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  132. I think there is some quote about that by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1
    Those who would give up essential gaming liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither gaming liberty nor safety.

    Or something like that :)

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
  133. Strippers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, I'm not gonna lie. If Vista gets me exclusive access to Vista-owned strip clubs, where the girls'll do _anything_?

    Where do I send my protection money check?! C'mon, "Billy Boy" Gates, lemme make you somma my momma's spaghetti.

  134. ahh not thanks I gave at the office by wap911 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have already switched in Oct 2005 to SimplyMEPIS and it's simply...

    As for LongNose / Vista or whatever I let me get my last word in before emoticons are patented into uselessness > ,,!,,

    'nuf said

    Hear that Billy G. ,,!,, ,,!,, ,,!,,

  135. Ethical Responsibility by rolandog · · Score: 1

    I feel Microsoft should code their new Internet Explorer 7 to be fully compatible with computers that date as far back as Windows 98 or ME. They deserve something much better than IE6. Imagine if you bought a car that would allow someone to easily get access to your car if they stuck a paper clip in the door-handle's lock. The previous 'hack' is only possible if the car is turned on, and the fault is caused by improper coding of the door-handle's security system. This car's operating system is on its 9th generation, which you heard was less prone to leave the engine stalling than its predecessors. When you complain to the car's vendor about security issues, he gladly lists your choises for protection: 1. A 500 pound juggernaut called Norton that will certainly keep your car safe, though he'll have a 'slight' impact on your performance. 2. Mr. McAfee, who 'might' get the perpetuators... 3. A russian officer that goes by the name of Kaspersky... he does the job well, but is such a perfectionist that he even warns you that you shouldn't turn on the radio. So, you see... if we were talking about cars, a lawsuit would force the vendor to replace the faulty car... but in this case the faulty cars are all that have come out of the production line... and they're not cars... they're computers... so that's a touchy subject when dealing with lawsuits.

    1. Re:Ethical Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, You can open a car door (even new cars) with nothing but a screw driver and your shoulder. That's a pretty bad analogy.

  136. Microsoft: CONFORM! CONSOOME! OBEY! by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    Yet another one of my posts where the subject explains everything short and sweet. K.I.S.S.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  137. per user by zogger · · Score: 1

    40 million on security. Wonder what that works out to be per windows user, a nickle? When they got 40 BILLION in the bank, 40 million is chump change.

    Anyway, be that as it may, your mod down is unfair in my linux - using opinion, You weren't flame baiting at all near as I can see, merely stating an opinion, and it's probably correct. A larger market share will mean more of an interest for the bad guys in compromising systems, it's just logical to assume that.

  138. Linux is doomed by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1
    Most reasons given for Linux being so much better than Windows are superficial and would be defeated were Linux the majority OS. Windows has problems but since win2k, as far as I can see right now, they boil down to three major issues. Linux, however, has a show-stopper.

    Windows problems :

    • No condition variables (instability inducing "events" instead)
    • Absence of least privilege security
    • Terrible low-level developer docs (which are critical for a closed source OS)

    Without that last I suspect that Windows might have been the "Undisputed" even despite the first two. In anycase the first two were understandable since no one knew then what they know now about events and least-privelege

    Linux has one problem that over-shadows all others :

    • A monolithic kernel

    Torvald's Sun shone brightly for a day, but his OS is fundamentally flawed and already he is turning into a red dwarf, with the added unattractiveness of seeming arrogance.

    1. Re:Linux is doomed by demon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Linux has one problem that over-shadows all others :

              * A monolithic kernel

      You're kidding, right? Microsoft has pretty much gutted Cutler's NT microkernel design, what with moving so many subsystems back into the kernel and all. And OS X? It's a full fledged BSD kernel running on top of a Mach microkernel - really, a microkernel arrangement in name only. The only reason they keep it around is because Mach provides some... interesting IPC facilities, which OS X exploits heavily. Everyone has either moved back toward the monolithic kernel, or hasn't strayed *that* far from it; outside of research or very limited, purpose specific OSes, a full-blown microkernel layout is pretty much nonexistant.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    2. Re:Linux is doomed by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1
      Did I say anything about Microkernels?

      In anycase since you mention it : Microsoft are pragmatic, and their idea of a microkernel may not fit an academic's thoughts on the subject, but nevertheless retain much of the benefit. The same could be said for OS X. The emphasis to be found in Windows and OS X is healthy.

      Linux, meanwhile, is bogged down trying to sort out 2.6. Despite having been releaseed some time ago nevertheless linux webhosts won't touch it. Though we can never be certain I would expect that the monolithic nature of linux is the prime factor in its troubles.

    3. Re:Linux is doomed by demon · · Score: 1

      Webhosts, you say? Strange, I work for one, and we run the 2.6 kernel on pretty much everything these days.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    4. Re:Linux is doomed by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1

      Thats nice for you, as for the rest of us....

  139. Well naturally it would go something like this: by i_c_andrade · · Score: 1
    Sergeant: Two civilian gentlemen to see you ... sir!

    Colonel: Show them in please, sergeant.

    Sergeant: Mr. Dino Vercotti and Mr. Luigi Vercotti.

    The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses.

    Dino: Good morning, colonel.

    Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.

    Luigi: (looking round office casually) You've ... you've got a nice army base here, colonel.

    Colonel: Yes.

    Luigi: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.

    Colonel: What?

    Dino: No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel)

    Colonel: Oh.

    Dino : Oh sorry, colonel.

    Colonel: Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down.

    Luigi: No, we prefer to stand, thank you, colonel.

    Colonel: All right. All right. But what do you want?

    Dino: What do we want, ha ha ha.

    Luigi: Ha ha ha, very good, colonel.

    Dino: The colonel's a joker, Luigi.

    Luigi: Explain it to the colonel, Dino.

    Dino: How many tanks you got, colonel?

    Colonel: About five hundred altogether.

    Luigi: Five hundred! Hey!

    Dino: You ought to be careful, colonel.

    Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful.

    Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they?

    Colonel: Break?

    Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.

    Dino: Oh see my brother's clumsy colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, colonel.

    Colonel: What is all this about?

    Luigi: How many men you got here, colonel?

    Colonel: Oh, er ... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops.

    Luigi: Paratroops, Dino.

    Dino: Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.

    Colonel: Set fire to them?

    Luigi: Fires happen, colonel.

    Dino: Things burn.

    Colonel: Look, what is all this about?

    Dino: My brother and I have got a little proposition for you colonel.

    Luigi: Could save you a lot of bother.

    Dino: I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, colonel.

    Luigi: Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like.

    Dino: It wouldn't be good for business would it, colonel?

    Colonel: Are you threatening me?

    Dino: Oh, no, no, no.

    Luigi: Whatever made you think that, colonel?

    Dino: The colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi.

    Luigi: We're your buddies, colonel.

    Dino: We want to look after you.

  140. Re:Slow news day by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    "Buy Vista, or I'll Fucking Kill (tm) you!" - Steve Ballmer

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  141. cedega and crossover office by jasonhamilton · · Score: 1

    look up crossover office.

    it's based on wine, as is cegega (for directx games) and will run your photoshop, excel, word, msie, etc. without a lot of the overhead that vmware has.

    --
    SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
  142. Oh Boy! by 4x5 · · Score: 1

    Just means I still wont pay for my "latest" copy of windows, (from 3.0 and up I have archived) it means nothing, sure it'll be great (for windows) but I'm not gonna rush out and get it, and XP will be sold on PC's for like 3-4 more years I expect. By that time I'll have my own "copy". Hate to say it..

  143. Or, by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gee, I wouldnt want anything bad to happen to your PC. You know, you really shouldnt be running Windows on that, or anything from Microsoft - you're just asked for one of around a million or so various trojan horses or other exploits that turn your PC into a spam or porn relay, steal your private data, or at best just severely cripple its performance.

  144. One Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Singularity

  145. Enable SOS on NT4 upwards by Puggs · · Score: 1

    to take google's first link as an example
    add /sos to boot.ini, like this:
    multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microso ft Windows 2000 Professional" /fastdetect /sos
    The title will be different I guess, but it works on nt upwards, and gives you an almost win98ish bootup

  146. An OS or a car..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the choice between Microsoft and Lotus, II'll go for the Lotus.

  147. You can upgrade??? by reclusivemonkey · · Score: 1
    From the article's comments section;
    Thought this is kinda a cool list. I can't wait for Vista! I'm planning on purchasing a new PC when it becomes avaiable.
  148. 2h setting up a PVR? by Silas+is+back · · Score: 1

    2 hours to set up a PVR makes me laugh. I plugged the EyeTV into my Mac, drag and dropped the application from the CD onto my Harddisk, launched the application, let it scan the frequencies and was all set.

    That`s how a computer should work these days, everything else is just yesterday.

    --
    this sig is useless
  149. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by DrDribble · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu doesn't show those messages by default, but you can allways press a key or something to see them. Also, if something hangs for a while (say network), the graphical loader will dissapear and you will see exactly what happens.

    That is the kind of stuff I really like about Ubuntu (and Gnome) - be easy to use for those that don't care, but be powerful for power users at the same time.

    Go Linux!

    --
    A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
  150. Unless you say you work for MS by theolein · · Score: 1

    Then your opinion is worth about as much as your paycheck. ;-)

  151. You are part of the problem by theolein · · Score: 1

    People like you, who are so dismissive of anything other than the platform they use, are the real problem in IT. Firstly, you have no understanding whatsoever of the fundamental differences in architecture between OpenBSD and Windows. These are real. It's not simply a matter of which OS is more popular. Use Google; read up on the approach to security in OpenBSD (A small hint: There is no way to execute an email attachment automatically. Here's another: OpenBSD is the OS that has the strictest and most thorough code review out there, and it has a record to prove it).

    As for your comment about malware The point being, the other OS's have never had the big guns on them - those well financed, smart, overseas bad actors who are out to make a buck., I was almost speechless. Did you know that the country where the most spam originates from is the US? Did it occur to you that "bad actors" could be American as well?

  152. An Oxymoron by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1
    Upgrade or keep crashing was the tagline when Windows XP was introduced.

    Wait... My XP still crashes from time to time... So where are the benefits of me upgrading???

    --
    The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
  153. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by Confuzzled · · Score: 1
    As a full-time Linux user who has had to attempt to fix a Windows box, I can say that not having those messages is way more inconvenient for the technician than having them is inconvenient for the user. Users can just ignore them, after all


    Or you can do it like Mac OS X: if you want to see the full messages, you press a few keys on bootup.

    c
  154. Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    Im a gentoo user and i dont get those 'Starting SSHD [ok]' type messages. I have a very good looking startup, with a progress bar, telling me what its currently doing. If i want to see the 'Starting SSHD [ok] ' type messages, i press alt+F1, and it shows them with an image behind the text, configured to look just how i like.

    Its very pretty, and very functional. Windows should do the same, but doesn't.

  155. NO security! by ZhuLien · · Score: 1

    Last time I posted something like this I got an offtopic rating, the thing is, I do NOT want my OS to be secure in any way. This is not a quick unthoughtful comment, security makes it really hard for me to do what I want to do on my own computer. It makes it hard to debug programs, it makes it hard for me to change the behaviour of my system, to patch jumpblocks, to change memory locations etc... Security in my view should NOT be part of the OS (I don't want multi-user either which brings in tons of security issues). Security is best left out of the OS. For me, I would secure my Network only (ie: with a hardware firewall) - my house doors stop people from using my computer direct and if I want Internet software to be secure, I would use them in a sandbox where necessary. Security in the OS brings in all sorts of issues, the main one preventing me from *using my own computer*.

  156. Re:Read this or the terrorists have already won . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unplug your antenna, cut your cable, and just use your TV for DVDs. Seriously, TV netwoks are full of so much rubbish. I don't say good TV programmes are not existing, but the stuff that it comes with is just not worth it. I'll rent the series when they make it to the rental store. (and I'll skip the commercials on the DVD by ripping it to HD first). I don't know why people don't have more self respect than to listen to what TV spouts at them. It's basically insulting.

  157. Of course Vista's security will be better by renoX · · Score: 1

    Given that security updates for XP are planned to stop soon, of course Vista will be more secure than XP..

    Now, I don't believe that Microsoft will manage to stop patching XP as soon as they'd like: customers will scream too much!

  158. Hidden Costs by Acer500 · · Score: 1

    "I view the legions of unofficial Windows Support Staff--your Brother-in -law, neighbor, whoever--as part of the hidden cost of running crappy software."

    Amen, brother! At the time of writing, I have my uncle's computer lying next to me, waiting to be restored to something resembling usable, while my father has already booked a slice of my Sunday afternoon, and tomorrow I have to migrate a Microsoft software so badly coded that tech support suggests I image the drive as the way to "migrate".

    By the way, I really hope that Vista offers a better "System Restore" or rollback utility (maybe per-program instead of points in time?)

    --
    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  159. XP SP3 by lophophore · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has gone on record to state that Windows XP SP3 will not ba available until after Vista ships. So, there will be quite a bit of time that there are known, unpatched security weaknesses in Windows XP...

    Now, I will go out on a limb, and say that Microsoft is not Evil. They are greedy bastards and abuse there near monopoly position. They need the revenue from selling a lot of expensive Vista licenses, and will do what they need to get that revenue, regardless of the technical superiority and improved security (or not) of Windows Vista

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  160. Marketing Security by LPrecure · · Score: 1

    Oh, come on! This is news? Every version of Windows since (at least) 3.1 has had exactly the same slogan on the outside of the box: "Faster, more reliable". (They haven't delivered on either promise. Not once. As far as I'm concerned, the last RELIABLE product MS released was DOS 6.22.) I remember reading that after Win95 came out, sales aparantly didn't meet MS predictions. It was sucessfull, but not as much so as expected. Supposedly, MS hired a polling company to surver 100K Win3.1 users who hadn't upgraded, and ask them "WHY haven't you upgraded to Win95?" The answers were broken down into, IIR, 13 categories. Since many users gave multiple reasons, the total of all of the category votes totaled to well over 100%. But supposedly, the #1 answer for "why haven't you upgraded?", scoring something like 85% was "My existing operating system works." I maintain that MS has learned from this survey, and has no intention of ever making the same mistake again.

  161. well by FxChiP · · Score: 1

    I don't know where you're getting your information from, but when I put my Mac to sleep and later want to wake it up, it takes all of one second to wake up. AND IT'S A USED IBOOK G3.

  162. Think of the children! by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Install Windows Vista today!

    Due to undesirables on that there interweb, your computer is at risk. Windows XP, we have recently discovered(*), is insecure, and attracts those who would steal your identity and credit information to purchase items and supplies used to engage in terrorist activities.

    With Trustworthy Computing(**), you can rest assured that your computer will be safe(+) from undesirable hacker terrorists when you upgrade to Windows Vista(tm). Endorsed by Homeland Security(++), Windows Vista will ensure that you do not support terrorist activities. By choosing Windows Vista you can help to keep your friends and family safe. Because Windows XP is so insecure, it is the favorite operating system of terrorists.

    Buy Windows Vista today. After all, you're not a terrorist. . . are you?

    (*) disclaimer: we knew it all along, but we had to spread the FUD
    (**) no one can modify your computer except we good people at Microsoft(tm)
    (+) We at Microsoft make NO guarantee that Windows Vista is secure. Install at own risk. No warranty expressed or implied.
    (++) We at Microsoft will neither confirm nor deny the existence of back doors in Windows Vista. Now stop asking us!

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  163. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    but you can't doubt that M$ will be paying more attention to security in the fundamental design of Vista than they did in XP.

    I'm not sure that they'll pay more attention to security in the fundamental design of Vista. Somehow, I think plausible deniability will be brought to new heights, though.

  164. Dinosaur by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

    Ever seen the ad campaign for Office, trying to convince people to get off Word 97, the "evolve" thing? They stick plastic dinosaurs on everyone's head. They don't say directly "you're a dinosaur", but it's pretty clear what they think of you, if you don't hand over a few hundred bucks for no reason whatsoever.

    I can only imagine what they'll do for Windows.

    --
    I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
  165. Let me use a different analogy by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    To me, Windows vs Mac/Linux/BSD is a little like my house. I have strong doors, locked windows, and an alarm system. I'm well aware that if a burglar really wanted in my house, he could get in. But why should he bother when my neighbors keep their Windows (tm) open? It's not such much "market-share" that make my neighbors bigger targets. It's that any fool can get into their place, and mine will take more work.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  166. YMMV by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that your Linux lets you work.

    My experience shows that *nix is impossible to get working correctly on the hardware I own. It take gobs of time to attempt to get services and networking to start, let alone work, and usually doesn't after that. The documentation is
    either non-existant, only outlined, or proliferated to the extent that there is no definitive document for a piece of software for my machine - if I could even determine the version I want or need for each software package.

    A Windows license saves me both buying new hardware and scouring the web for the possibly existant software to fill my needs.

    Having said that, I use OpenOffice at every opportunity - even though it is imperfect and is missing Access so it isn't a total solution. And I've always been more than a little paranoid about the direction Microsoft is going, both for DMCA parts and licensing.

    But Windows just lets me get things done. It doesn't require a full weekend for me to try installing something new and possibly kill my machine in the process while not necessarily being able to succeed in getting the software or hardware to work.

    You run Linux. I'm getting things done.

    8-PP

  167. dubious claims by bmajik · · Score: 1

    right click on any icon and click "run as". Problem with running older software solved. If it happens more often "Set Program Access and Defaults" works wonders.

    This is a good start, but it doesn't work for everything. Afterall, often you want to retain your domain network credentials but elevate yourself to local admin. I dont think this situation is handled correctly by right click->Run As (but i'd be happy to be wronng).

    Another situation where this gets cranky is trying to debug DLLs using something like VB6. VB6 has a nice debugger that lets you break right into COM DLLs and single step through them. This, however, requires admin rights and i dont think Run As makes this as painless as a right click launch of devenv.

    Seriously, if Microsoft thought everything would work peachy with "Run As" they would have made a "Run As Admin" directly on the right click menu. I've suggested two situations off hand where i think you're wrong, and I am sure the appcompat guys working on XP had a much longer list. Bottom line, your scenarios are neither exhaustive nor necessarily representative.

    C) Specialty software wasn't written for only one OS and/or using proprietary crap like MS SQL.

    What's crappy about MS SQL? Have you ever been a DBA? (mySQL doesn't count - it is not a feature complete database, its backup/restore story has historically been awful, and it's performance seems to tail off badly once you start loading it with hundreds or thousands of user connections).

    I've found SQL significantly easier to install, manage, and tune than Oracle, and its functionally light years ahead of mySQL, the darling of people that don't know what they're doing w.r.t. mission critical databases. And the performance of SQL is "sufficient" - look at the TPC/C scores it posts.

    I regret that I haven't invested much effort into learning about Postgres, which i see as the only credible competitor to SQL server. [Today's DB/2 announcement notwithstanding].

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.