Longhorn Server's "Improved" Security

An anonymous reader writes, "The 'most secure Windows ever' may be very secure from hackers and malware — but what do you do when Longhorn Server lets you install the OS, set up Active Directory, and initialize the domain without once asking you even to create an administrator password? From the article: 'What happened to Windows Server? Where did all of the stringent security checks and ultra-protection of Windows Server 2003 go? Windows Server 2000 was quite insecure, and Windows Server 2003 turned over a new leaf... But it seems Microsoft is more than willing to flip that page back — even Windows Server 2000 required an Administrator password at the very least.'" Inevitably, Dave Barry's years-old quote comes to mind: "Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'"

Comments

I *really* hate to come out swinging for MS...

[Dputiger]

But I have to, as far as the Dave Barry quote goes, especially since it wasn't even related to the story being linked. I've used every Windows OS going back to 2.0, and run my main system on 95, 98SE, ME (briefly, and just to see if it was really that bad), 2K, and XP. I've done tech support for both businesses and consumers, I've built systems for people, and I've reviewed computer hardware for years--and in the process of doing all that, I've seen a lot of Windows installations on a lot of different hardware, from brand-new to dying of old age.

There are a lot of things I don't like about Microsoft, and there are a lot of areas where I think their products could be improved and streamlined--but I think a lot of people (both here and elsewhere) throw out disparaging remarks about XP in certain areas just because it's fashionable, or convenient, especially about system stability. XP may have had its kinks early on, but I'd say its been incredibly stable / reliable since at least SP1. I reboot my home rig, on average, maybe once a month--and that's typically a choice, not a forced situation. I've had one hard crash / reboot situation in the past 6 months. It's not just a system that sits idle all day, either--I work from home, game, and do all my multimedia / browsing, IM'ing, etc, all from the same box. Now yes, if you start to factor security updates into the "reliability" equation, WindowsXP starts to look a bit less shiny. If you assume that "WindowsXP" also means "WindowsXP + IE6", that's even worse...but hey, that's why I use Firefox.

People can argue that they hate the XP GUI--that's opinion. You can argue it's bloated, or you hate WGA, or Product Activation, or whatever, and you can argue about security issues all day long. But measured in terms of basic reliability--no BSODs, no inexplicable driver failures or failed device detection, and no random reboots--XP blows the doors off any of the Win9X products, and is arguably better than 2K in some performance and multimedia areas. (Hyper-Threading is the one area where I distinctly remember XP outperforming 2K--other areas I'd have to dig for at the moment).

I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but part of doing that fairly means admitting when a company gets something right--and anyone still pretending that Microsoft hasn't made huge strides in stability, reliability, features, and performance since the Win9X days needs to go out and actually try to set up (and then modify) a 98SE box. I've had to do so recently, and it's not a pretty picture. I still remember how to jump through all the various hoops, but that doesn't mean I miss them.