Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Disses Windows to Sell More Windows
mjasay writes "I stumbled across this fascinating Microsoft tutorial entitled "How to Justify a Desktop Upgrade." It's an attempt to coach IT professionals on how to sell Windows desktop upgrades internally. Apparently the value of Vista is not readily apparent, requiring detailed instructions on how to connive and cajole into an upgrade from XP. The most intriguing thing about the tutorial is its implicit rejection of Microsoft's older technology. Just a few years ago Microsoft was pitching the world on how secure and cool XP was. Now it's telling us largely the opposite, implying that XP is a security threat, costs too much to run, and so on. With Microsoft marketing against itself, perhaps the Mac and Linux camps can simply wait for Microsoft to self-destruct?"
Now it's telling us largely the opposite, implying that XP is a security threat, costs too much to run, and so on.
Hah! Now I have the evidence I need to convince my boss not to make that XP transition. Now where did I put that time machine?
This guy's the limit!
"Apparently the value of Vista is not readily apparent" Vista has a value that is all too readily apparent. That's why the uptake has been, ahem, less than enthusiastic. Vista DVD's have a much higher value - they make dandy drink coasters!!
Now, this is funny, but I want to caution you that this is something they need to change. If you criticize them for attacking their own vulnerabilities, you're not giving them a chance to change. Microsoft isn't going to self destruct so let's hope they stop giving botnets & trojans a home in this world. Better security is better for the community and the users. Don't attack someone when they recognize their wrong doings and attempt to correct them. If you don't allow that, then how can anyone improve? Personally I examine my mistakes, acknowledge them and fix them. I certainly hope that Microsoft does this because it's evident that they'll still sell well despite them.
My work here is dung.
It's kind of silly to blame Microsoft for making the claim that their latest OS is better/more secure/prettier/whatever than previous versions. After all, isn't that the whole point of versions? i.e. To easily identify the progression of features and functionality. If the latest version of Windows weren't the latest and greatest, I'd be very surprised to hear Microsoft say otherwise.
Linux may be a great OS, but I'd take a 2.6 kernel over a 2.2 kernel any day for my desktop computing needs. 2.2 is buggy, slow, insecure, and sucks compared to the latest kernel. If you were in charge of upselling users to 2.6, you'd say as much, I hope.
Is there a way to sell upgrades without, "dissing" your previous product? On the other hand, this is a great way to justify not fixing known bugs.
You know, when Microsoft (or any company) makes a mistake, I'm usually first on the bandwagon trying to point out the stupidity. But times change. What was awesome last year may be crap this year. Especially in the computer world where technology moves very fast.
Think about it, there was a time when Apple said that the PPC arch was far superior to x86....they may have even been right, there are tons of things that I personally would have designed differently. But here we are today, using x86 Macs. No biggie, it was a big flip flop or anything, they just decided that switching to PPC made more sense on enough levels. In fact, now Apple is advertising that they are great because they can run Windows too (more that Windows is faster on a mac...but still). This implies that the switch to x86 was an improvement!
Bottom line is that they weren't lying when they said XP was better. By the time SP2 came out, this was very much the truth. Now they believe that Vista is an improvement, and antiquates XP. And you know what, in many ways this is the truth. Vista is FAR more secure than XP is, the technologies applied make it simply harder to weaponize vulnerabilities than it was with XP.
Technologies evolve, times change, perspectives get updated. No biggie.
I beginning to think they made Vista a pile of crap deliberately so that they wont have to lie so much when the next upgrade cycle comes along.
OK, maybe not, but it must begin to dawn on them that the "next big thing hype" business model is getting stale.
Vista has just *tons* of value, it's totally worth the 400.00 to 'upgrade' to this OS.
For just $400.00 you get:
1. New Screensavers
2. New DRM = be treated like a criminal
3. New Product activation = be treated like a criminal
4. New Desktop 'Gadgets' - more stuff to break
5. New Windowing System
6. New Eye-Candy
for no Extra charge, you also get:
-New Support Costs
-Upgrade your applications that suddenly don't work anymore
-New Training Costs
-New Hardware - because the eye candy NEEDS 256Mb of video ram
I remember the days when all an OS had to do was manage memory, IO resources and schedule CPU time. It didn't have all this damn cruft.
Oh wait, there are still OS's that 'just work', Linux is one, if I want a fancy window manager, I have what, 10 to choose from?
Wow, what a deal!
MS and Intel have been their own biggest competitor for years. With each new revision they have to go out and convince people that latest one is the best one ever and the old one should be replaced.
They have not been able to add compelling enough features, and customers get very angry at incompatibilities such as MS-Word has seen.
So they have to resort to targetted obsolescence, cajolery and legalistic tactics such as trying to tie the OS the the machine it was first licenced for. I'm not sure if those portions of the EULA violating ":first sale" have been upheld.
See the difference though is that Linux was perfect from the start because it was free and it wasn't Microsoft, so any changes since then have just been improving on perfection. And anyway Windows sometimes crashed so that made Linux better too. And something about beer. Shut up and drink more Kool-Aid.
While the summary, in typical Slashdot style, is heavily slanted, the article offers some interesting advice. Microsoft apparently has some serious problems trying to convince people to upgrade to Vista. Not because Vista is particularily bad (it isn't), but because XP is good enough already. So what would you do? You either use "evil" techniques like stopping distributing the old OS, shutting down upgrade servers or making your new software exclusive to the new OS. Or you use "good" techniques like publishing articles about how bad your previous OS was. Pick your choice. Also realize that all arguments presented in the article for switching from XP to Vista could equally well be applied to switching from XP to Linux.
Football Odds
As opposed to hefty upfront costs upgrading hardware and troubleshooting software-related issues on a poorly supported and performing operating system? What about the extra costs involved in paying staff to wait for your brand new Vista computer to do the same thing an XP machine would do in half the time, like boot?
"The increase in security - the inability for users to just simply install stuff, means that you are decreasing the amount of reactive tasks that an administrator has to perform," said Johnson.
Isn't that what restricting Administrative privileges are for? Grandma's XP Home machine has that feature.
I guess there's no point me pasting any more of the article, it sort of speaks for itself.
I drank the Kool-Aid, and now I feel the need to piss on everyone and everything in sight.
What management may not realize, however, is that they are already paying a hefty hidden cost by having outdated systems in place, "because you are paying for an administrator's time to deal with these issues," Johnson said.
So there aren't any costs to maintaining Vista? Yeah right. Marketing FUD if I ever heard. I guess it's no real surprise though. Business x wants you to pay them the most money, so they'll say whatever to get your money, even if it is FUD.
I got a catholic block.
They have certain objectives with each OS release - they focus intentionally only on the "hip" and "now" features that are getting all the press and buzz. Features that are flashy now, but in a couple of years, will seem incredibly dated and myopic. Then they can later market a new OS version by telling us that the older one was missing all kinds of important design features. Well, duh! It's like that by design.
Why not just get an operating system that's more modular, and it will have all the features you want? That way, you won't have to pay for an expensive upgrade just so that you can have that one really neat thing. It'll already have that one really neat thing, because you already installed it the minute it was available.
---don't make me break out my red pen.
Because, you know, it was just yesterday that Apple was telling us how 10.4 was the shiznit. Now we've got 10.5, and suddenly, they won't even sell 10.4 anymore!
Or consider the Linux kernel. Back in the 2.0 days, everyone was telling me about how great Linux was. Now that we've got kernel 2.6, everyone's just dropping support for 2.0 and telling me it sucks compared to the latest version.
It is not unfair for a company to say that the newest version of their software is BETTER than their old version. If it wasn't, why release it?
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
vista still == WinMe2.0
bah.... what is the compelling argument to upgrade all my hardware? the aps i need still run perfect on my old athlon 64 xp3200. i mean this box is 6 or 7 years old, and it still works fine. where is my motivation to replace it all? im old enough the next quake doesn't matter anymore.
bah humbug
-.no
My blog
Every reason given there applies doubly to Linux.
Now if Only Linux had the desktop apps....
No sig today...
Also, I'd say the point of the article is that Microsoft even has to upsell Vista over XP. The last time they needed to snowjob corporates into upgrading was around 1995 or so. And not nearly so much so as they're doing today.
My blog
I beg to differ.
It's horrible.
It tells me that my system administrator has set up policies to stop certain things (I haven't, and neither can I find where it claims these policies are set).
It refuses to run some programs on startup and has no button for "Just run it, asshole", admin privileges or no.
It's confusing and restricting. That and the enormous system hoggery have really put me off. I always used Windows for my main system before, the machine that came with Vista finally pushed me to use linux full time.
(why yes I am a geek. And no, I don't expect everyone and their granny to make the same switch. But for *me* vista finally became more trouble to run than Linux)
I'll agree with your main point though - XP was plenty good enough for me to be going on with, though many many people do get into virus/malware hell. But of course now some new hardware has no XP drivers so I'm forced not to downgrade.
Viva Ubuntu.
Apparently the value of Vista is not readily apparent
Neither is the value of used cat litter.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
This headline was just rubbish. Aren't moderators supposed to clear them up?
A typically american, non-informational, slightly missleading, only-making-you-wonder headline - to waste your time to read the first paragraph. And we're getting a lot of those lately.
What's so difficult about "Microsoft Vista advisory makes XP look bad" ?
Ah, right! That headline would make this story to a non-story.
As individuals, yes I agree 100%. Especially as a sysadmin, no one bats 1000. It's all about setting things up so the failures are graceful rather than total flame-outs.
But we're talking about a company with proprietary operating system and total market control that spent man-years developing kernel-level DRM for practically all I/O instead of developing a sane security model. "Allow/Deny?" is not a security model. Neither is UAC. It allows privilege escalation. Mark Russinovich, MS's own man said so much to the chagrin of corporate I'm sure.
Some of the people modding your comment insightful have (probably) fallen into Microsoft's version of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
In light of this, should we be afraid of Service Pack 3 being designed to make Windows XP worse?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
*Installs Slackware Hey look guys root is default
I'd take the version of windows.
Then eBay it!
I'd say microsoft's biggest problem is trying to be a zune,xbox,wordprocessing, ect.... company.
Why on earth would they just not stick to their knitting/bread and butter products which are operating systems. By trying to be the be all end all of technology companies all we as consumers can expect is mediocre products. Am I the only one who see a major problem with this as a business model?
To me it seems elementary that taking resources away from your core business to try and beat others at their core businesses is ridiculous and also opens up the company to many competitive threats at the same time. Instead of just having to compete with OS manufacturers they now have to compete with a whole new list of competitors. Whoever decided to take the core business and expand is directly responsible for a product like Vista
What management may not realize, however, is that they are already paying a hefty hidden cost by having outdated systems in place, "because you are paying for an administrator's time to deal with these issues," Johnson said. The trick is to show management this in a way that translates into dollars saved.
"It's a hard sell, because security is not a line item on their income or expense sheets. There also is not a line item that says they lost, say, $100,000 on their security problem last year. Or lost staff productivity because people had viruses on their machines," he said.
Of course, MSFT can claim Vista is better than XP. It should not be seen as dissing XP. In fact every company makes such a claim. On the other hand, MSFT taking time to educate the IT honchos about the hidden costs of vulnerability and security implications etc might benefit Linux as a side benefit. If they get the message that security is important, they might see that monoculture is a vulnerability too.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
OP ED
Microsoft will *never* produce a secure system: the user is *not* the customer: the advertising industry is. just as in television, *we* are *not* the customer: *we* are what is for sale, advertising is the customer, tv industry is selling *us* as *audience* to the advertisers
and Windows is not any different in this respect but is rather a transitional product taking us from the television screen to the selectivision screen which is what the WWW+television will morph into
the initial work is already done: the www has injected so much graphics into computer presentaions that hi-speed broad band is now necessary for "surfing".
now that that's been done the next step is to combine the web with digital TV and you have the advertising marketing dream come true: television with instantaneous feed-back on what everyone is watching and how everyone is responding to it
the ability to adjust your windows programming all along a little here and there is critical to the development and maintenance of this scheme and that is why Microsoft can *never* produce a secure system. Their system provides access to customer computer for paying customers and that includes the ability to modify the client programming ( your computer ). all of this is hidden from everyone except the hackers of course
why do you think we patch and patch and patch and patch and for every patch a new vulnerability shows up? because the patch only moves the remote access capability from one hiding place to another it doesn't remove it. and never will.
"IMHO", -- FWIW
Is this new or interesting to anyone who has spent anytime watching generation after generation of technology go by?
This reminds me of a commercial that Best Buy was running a few years ago about a guy who was looking to something for his brother for Christmas. The Best Buy Guy(tm) was asking what kind of person his brother was and there was this cheesy flashback of a guy with a mullet in a Camero who was all stoked about buying "the latest technology" (a VCR with a tethered remote). The Best Buy Guy and the brother kind of laughed about it as if to say "he thought that was cool?". But we all know damn well that if this was 1982 again Best Buy would be pushing these things off on the consumer as the latest "must have" tech. anyway...
It's the same here. Companies and stores dick on yesteryear's models/version to make the new stuff seem more of a bargain. How else do you think that EA keeps selling the same sports games to the same gimps year after year? It's certainly not like they're changing the game play that much and as we all know the story line isn't changing.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
But if we follow that logic, the move from 16-bit Windows to 32-bit Windows was a significant and necessary step. Win95 provided the launching pad for all future Windows operating systems, even WinCE which is 32-bit from the ground up. If anyone was blind to the benefits of the move from a 16 bit to a 32 bit architecture, they at least got carried along on the tsunami-like transition. While Win95 wasn't their best product, it may have been Microsoft's most important OS to date because it provided the foundation for all subsequent Windows versions with its Win32 API.
Now, if Vista needs to be sold in this way, with IT teams kicking and screaming all the way, what is it that they are missing in the bigger picture? Sure, non-root access has always been a staple of Unix-like systems, but for Windows systems, this is something very new. If you are going to run Windows, you are going to run it as non-administrator from here on out. All new apps must stop assuming root privileges or get left behind. Windows systems are going to get more secure as the technology becomes more understood. So this is a sea change in programming styles that we're staring at.
Is Vista getting it right? No, of course not. It's got tons of problems. But neither did Win95 do everything right. It took 3 years before Windows finally became solid in the form of Win98, and it took another 2 years after that to get to a point of rock-solidity in Win2K. Now, after XP has been updated several times, even Win2K feels dated and clumsy. Vista, with all its flaws, has a clear goal: keep the ease of use of Windows and provide a system of security that doesn't need arcane commands to configure. So far, it sucks. The permission dialog pops up way too often and there doesn't seem to be a way of setting it to "always allow" for some apps (VSExpress, for example). But those problems will eventually get ironed out, I'm sure.
Sometimes "corporates" need to be snowjobbed in order to get things done.
Whenever you purchase an automobile, the dealer makes sure to tell you how incredibly reliable and maintenance free the vehicle your buying happens to be in order to get you to put down the money to purchase it. Minutes later, the same dealer will be warning you that the very same car could break down at any time and cost you thousands in repair costs within the first year of ownership in an effort to get you to buy an after market warranty.
Schizophrenic marketing is certainly not unique to Microsoft or the software industry!
Allow/Deny?" is not a security model. Neither is UAC. It allows privilege escalation.
Right, because *nix OSes don't allow privledge escalation either. Do an experiment. Take your Vista machine and remove your account from the Administrators group. Notice how Allow / Deny becomes "Enter administrator password."
Then, logon to your Linux machine and run any UI tool for administering the system. Notice the same "Enter administrator password" prompt.
What is it exactly you dont like about UAC and the allow/deny thing? I hear people rant against it all the time but I still dont know why it is inferior to other models. Not trying to flame you, I am genuinely curious what you think is wrong with it.
and have no understanding of the Linux development process.
I guess you've never read the “Intel Retail Edge” program manual or virtually any software's change-log/release notes.
It's been a long time since I've seen such crap on the frontpage of /. Almost every product out there gets released under these values, including the Linux kernel and MacOS. “It's more secure, upgrade now!”
That's the point. XP came out years ago, and finally in 2007 a new version of Windows was released after much bitching by the market (us). Now that it's out, we're attacking its release because of the reasons we wanted a new version of Windows?
Excuse me if I don't see the point of this news...
I damn near died.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
The heading "troll" on this slashdot article is correct and appears to be a fabrication that misrepresents the article
"How to Justify a Desktop Upgrade." Why is garbage like this allowed to stay up?
1) The MS tutorial mentions older operating systems as a generic, it does not diss XP, it does not even mention XP!
2) "newer operating system, such as Windows Vista". Vista is the example, put "XP" or other OS in there if you want.
3) The article is a template to help frustrated IT admins/managers show reason and overcome objection to a proposal of migrating to a newer OS. Any admin in any environment could use this template.
I am not commenting on the PCWorld article here, just the misrepresentation in the first part of the article. Let me know if the poster is talking about a differnt version of "How to Justify a Desktop Upgrade" because from what I see the posting is a lie, plain and simple.
CC
This is just too funny. Microsoft is admitting that their previous software is crap. Well, they're preaching to the choir oin that one. A lot of us have already decided that MS = crap.
In what ways, precisely? OK, you don't get the fuzzy fonts, or the Barbie Horse Adventures default theming, but in what other ways does 2K feel "dated" and "clumsy"?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Well, I was happily reading along and moderating when I came to this comment where there was no moderation drop-down - even though someone had already moderated the comment +1 Insightful.
What gives Slashdot?
Don't tell me you can suddenly withdraw the powers of moderation from a comment if you don't like the way it's going?
Nah! Probably a technical glitch, eh?
You are coming to a sad realization, Cancel or Allow.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Stallman? Is that you?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Some of the people modding your comment insightful have (probably) fallen into Microsoft's version of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.
Not all of us have. Microsoft security model sucks. It is even too complex for MSCEs to understand. And how many used "Policies" in the NT and XP models? I mean really used them?
The model needs to be simplified. Linux is my answer. Ubuntu has it down nicely and so does Fedora.
Honestly switching to Vista had some unexpected results. First, my graphics card stopped overheating and blue screening my computer. Second Vista installed all the drivers that I used to have to install myself. Third, I have Aero running, and after some minor tweaks, I am using the same amount of RAM that I was using on XP. So, For me the upgrade was a good one. Also, I put all the of the crappy Vista programs (Vista Mail, Defender, etc.) in program folder titled Microsoft. Then I installed Firefox and Thunderbird. Now I am happier than ever.
Nowadays, Microsoft likes to boast that they have always produced the most secure version of Windows yet. Well, whoopdidoo. You will notice how they will never say they have produced a secure version of Windows. This helps them prevent lawsuits.
this is hardly news. i spent the late nineties being told that NetWare is garbage you have to deploy NT, then i spent the early zeros being told that NT is garbage you have to deploy 2000, then it was 2000 is garbage you to deploy XP, then it was 2000 is garbage you have to deploy 2003, now it's XP is garbage you have to deploy Vista and 2003 is garbage you have to deploy 2008.
Us unix/linux fanboys have been saying for years that the biggest hole in the many versions of windows was the lack of password protection of the operating system files (install as root, run as user - otherwise a simple batch file can be used as a virus..)
This simple idea has been around for at least 25 years, so there is no technical reason that Microsoft are so late to this party.
Comparing this gaping security hole (from DOS to WinXP) to minor linux kernel enhancements from 2.2 to 2.6 is not terribly relevant..
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
And the answer is YES vista is more secure than XP, and yes I prefer vista than fixing viruses and computers all the time, more to VISTA favor: Viruses are winning, most antivirus applications are not 100% safe. I would really like to work with linux but lets face it, even ubuntu is missing a lot of drivers, and I just tested 10 linuxes these days, and even if i like it I know most microsoft users are not willing to have problems with configuration, or the shockwave and flashplayer bugs on linux browsers. If you are not using games XP VISTA is far better, for every day office work, internet etc. and it work fast enough, lets considere that most users dont really care about performance nowadays, between a cup of coffee or chatting with coworkers they loose considerably more time. BUT WHAT THEY WANT IS a PC that is there when they need it, NO viruses, No driver problems. If you are a gamer most games have problems,and vista prefetch is lousy, eating your memory, it create problems with cards that can expand memory using RAM PC memory. a guess, vista solution seems easy just buy a better graphic card or expand your memory to 4 Gygabyte, i wonder how many out there have enough money to do that. If you really need autocad or your a professional designer, WHy are you using microsoft??!!!, better use, open VMS, linux or something else. So real power users dont use windows for they work, for most companies, althought VISta is far better, and they have a plus.. VISTA IS NOT GOOD FOR GAMERS....YET
I hear people rant against it all the time but I still dont know why it is inferior to other models.
it's a fine idea, but it's too prompt-happy IMO. it prompts for things it shouldn't need permission for. with KiCAD (a PCB design program), it randomly prompts when you open the program, and i can't think of anything that it would need permission for. another friend of mine has it prompting him for permission everytime he compiles a program (using code::blocks (forget what build) and gcc. though i haven't heard of anyone else getting this, so i think it's just something odd with his system/configuration.)
the frequency of the prompts effectively trains user oh-it's-bugging-me-again-just-hit-allow, which completely defeats the purpose.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The long boot times.
The lack of OS-level zip file support.
Lack of wifi support.
Lack of support for certain software (granted, this is a software problem, but XP supports more of the software I need).
It's not all about the fonts and eye candy, which are typically turned off right away. It's about the niceties and necessities of working in the system every day that make XP a better system than 2K.
The only real ding against XP is that you can't install it willy nilly like you can with 2K. I still have a 2K disk lying around here that I used to use to get old systems up and running, but nowadays not so much with Ubuntu replacing it mostly. But having the ability (though perhaps not the legitimate right) to install 2K as much as I wanted was definitely better than XP's product activation scheme.
Microsoft's biggest competition is itself.
... YET.
They hardly can compare themselves to Apple or Linux, because those aren't really competition
All the reasons to upgrade to Vista I've seen are in reality nothing. The support costs for Vista in my organization are huge, especially when dealing with re-imaging issues (Ghost, WDS etc). It will take one of us (Analyst level) guys six months to evaluate, test, and prepare for a Vista rollout. That's six months of dedicated planning. Six Months with our small under staffed department.
It isn't going to happen for at least two years, and by then, the next version will probably be out, some sort of XP on steroids.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Well designed PCB design programs will not require administrator permissions.
I don't see any real issue with MS for making progress. The difference between Linux and Windows is that Linux has been open about its faults whereas MS has not been as open. Because Linux isn't a product by single company, it does not have as much to lose in terms of disclosure. Windows is the flagship of MS. They cannot afford for the public to perceive them too negatively. That means that PR and spin will trump disclosure. This is the same for most companies. But realize MS got where it is today due to some illegal, monopolistic tactics as well as marketing and not so much on technical merit. They have to be careful now as the public realizes that there are alternatives.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I think there is a common point missed by everyone who takes Microsoft's side on this. They've already had their Win95 moment. They didn't learn much. It's as if Microsoft is the last to get the memo on these issues. If they had spent the 87 million dollars they 'invested' in SCO (who promptly used it to try and bring legal action againced Linux itself?!) and used it instead to do some research on why the *ix model of security seemed so much more robust, they might have been able to buy themselves a clue. THIS IS A PROPRIETARY SYSTEM with a HUGE development budget and a massive amount of very talented developers. Why are they consistently releasing overglorified betas to the public as final releases, and forcing the world to be their own personal test and debug environment, all while charging a king's ransom for the priveledge?! It is simply outrageous.
You can't run the IE 7 on it, so you're stuck with the circa 2000 era IE6. You can't use ClearType or the Consolas font (yeah, I know you mentioned that but so what - it still contributes to a 'dated' appearance on my LCD monitor). No Paint.net, so you're stuck with Paint if you want a free graphics package (unless you're prepared to suffer the absurd nonsense that is Gimp) - no, I can't justify paying for a graphics package for the minimal amount of editing I need to do. Loads of small things, really, but XP comes for free when you buy a new PC and I don't pay for the one I use at work. To willingly choose Win2K over XP is just ridiculous.
e/j I could buy your argument
except Ms response is so late and security problems so pervasive that Ms sincerity must now come into question.
I don't think they have any intention of producing a secure system.
just my opinion of course bu that's how this looks to me.
I'd prefer to be proven wrong. and the way Ms can do that is ship us a system that the hackers don't get into. Not too much to ask.
"1) The MS tutorial mentions older operating systems as a generic, it does not diss XP"
Do you mean that what they really mean is that Vista is not more secure, has less TCO and doesn't save money than Vista. If so then why the need to write an article on 'How to Justify a Desktop Upgrade'.
The hidden cost of vulnerability
'What management may not realize, however, is that they are already paying a hefty hidden cost by having outdated systems in place, "because you are paying for an administrator's time to deal with these issues," Johnson said.'
'2) "newer operating system, such as Windows Vista"'
Newer that what, please tell us what newer is refering to. Vista is newer then Vista doesn't make sense.
Re:Lead slashdot post is a lie (score: 5 EXCUSES~1)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Linux/BSD and OSX have a totally sane security model. Anything that comes in is read only. Anything. Download a file? Read only. Email? Read only. I can't execute anything without specifically jumping through some hoops to get there.
Most importantly, I'm not interrupted and I don't need antivirus software. I work/waste time/whatever safely. Most importantly the people who come to me for IT advice who don't care to know IT have nothing to worry about.
From an enterprise perspective, the whole ACL system is fantastically complex. It's mind boggling once you wade into it. There's the gui tools and another set of command line tools to get stuff done. A different example is trying to keep track of who logs into servers on a domain when and from where. You just can't do it easily in win2k, 2003, 2003r2.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
My blog
Or does it seem like we may have some Microsoft employees posting on this thread. Hmmm.... Reply if you're thinking what I'm thinking.
patches
might as well smoke 'em cuz they do nothing to help security: our systems are still being hacked and hacked and hacked until now "computer security" is just a joke
what are you smoking?
they have no growth without a major dump of their installed base. and they did a major dump on their OS to make it too base to install.
Arnold Toynbee wins again.. societies (and large megacorporations) die from within, not from without.
if SP1 doesn't make Vista more XP-ish, they'd better have something quick and dirty up their sleeve, like MicroWindowsFlash2100+, with the footprint of 3.1 and the speed of DOS 6.2.1
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
While I'd likely be the first in line with gasoline if MS HQ was on fire, I really don't see how the situation described could in any reasonable way be expected to be a sign of Microsoft's impending doom. Even if they never made it into high 6-figure sales of Vista, they'd still have what, about 90% market share for their desktop OS? If Vista completely laid an egg, there still wouldn't be dramatic anti-MS push from the mainstream.
Even as myself a FreeBSD user, I'll say that I just don't see the failure of Vista as panning out in any real way to be a fantastic victory for the Unix-based systems out there. People are still going to want to stay with their familiar OS - which of course is windows.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
MS is an oil tanker. Even after your turn the engines off, it takes a long, long while until it stops.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If its not broken, don't fix it. Microsoft tried to be someone else with Vista and in turn they are now trying to convince people that XP was something else. I am fine using XP for games and applications that I need and my Mac for everything else.
If more people talked less about the stupid things Microsoft says, there a big corporation there suppose to say dumb things, and just spread the word and took it upon yourself to use other programs like OpenOffice and Linux then this will show the world that there are alternatives. That these alternatives work. That they are lower in the cost of ownership if the community helps each other. Stop being shocked what Microsoft says and does.
this same program runs quite happily under a limited account on XP. and the prompts are random as hell. it'll often go for over a week without prompting me, then start prompting out of the blue.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Go Vista...
Because lack of necessity shouldn't stop you.
Because you need a reason to buy a new computer.
A better reason to jump to Mac/Linux/etc.
Because Microsoft needs to make a couple more millionaires.
Because Windows XP makes baby Jesus cry!
OR ELSE!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"...perhaps the Mac and Linux camps can simply wait for Microsoft to self-destruct?"
Maybe Mac can wait. There will never be a "Year of the Desktop" for Linux. Get over it.
Boot times: XP gets to the shell much quicker than 2K. In fact, 2K requires about 8 minutes on the PC it is loaded on. An identical machine running XP is ready to run in 3 minutes. (Debian 4.0 "Web server" profile takes about 4 minutes to get to a login prompt, for comparison)
.Net library is automatically out of the running on 2K. Any development tools that target .Net will be as well. Any software that uses the new APIs in XP will also not run on 2K. There are enough products that do not work on 2K for me to avoid it. Unfortunate as that may be, and as
Zip: Anyone who chooses WinZip for anything but the most basic of zipping tasks deserves all the hell they get. While the zip support in XP may be lacking compared to "what I'd like", I have yet to find a tool that allows me to treat zip files as part of the filesystem like Explorer does. Also, having the support at the click of the mouse button makes it so simple, even my grandmother can do it.
Wifi: In XP, you click on "Find nearby wifi places" and get a list of routers to choose from. Click on the one you want, enter your credentials and you're up and running. In 2K, you need to do all the configuring from the control panel/network properties dialog. I'm a sucker for just getting things running quickly, so XP "supports" wifi while 2K does not.
Software support: Any software that relies on the
It's not that security is hard - it is, but it isn't as hard as the jokers who don't even have the easy parts try to make you believe.
We have lots and lots and lots of security methods and systems that would put 99% of today's trojan and exploit writers out of business because they'd have to get a degree in CS first just to understand even the theoretical exploits.
But that stuff is hard to implement, and even harder to implement right. MS is one of the few entities that have the resources to do it. And probably - unless the rumours of the exodus of the really smart people are true - the required level of know-how and brains.
But, instead of putting those resources into real security, they put them into DRM, half-assed stealing of Apple's latest ideas, and adding extra incompatability code to make sure some stuff only runs on Vista, even though it could run just as well on XP as some cracker group proved for the Shadowrun game, for example.
It's priorities, and MS has its priorities very seriously fucked up.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Firefox runs on it fine.. even windows heads that I know won't touch IE7.
The best that you can come up with is 'runs an updated version of paint'?? lol.
Paint is not a graphics package. It's a simple bmp editor that that's largely useless.
Jesus Christ, is this site biased enough? Many technologies in newer OS's aren't readily apparent, and do require some brain power to understand. Or is this site advocating all there is to software is the UI? Give me a fucking break.
"According to research conducted by Wipro and GCR Custom Research, total cost of ownership for Windows XP is $4,407 annually, while Vista's cost is $3,802. " My dad gave me his old laptop with XP preinstalled. Does that mean I owe him $3,802? -------- Really though, four grand even buying some super quad core machine, getting Win[V|XP], Office[pick your poison], shouldn't cost near that amount.
I think a huge design flaw in Windows was denying access to the settings instead of just sandboxing (caging) the registry and emulating those settings so the program can't really distinguish between the current user settings and the global settings.
Had this been implemented, people could install any programs and they wouldn't affect other accounts - which meant that, if you got a virus, the virus would only be for your current user. It would be a lot easier for an admin to then scan the registry for viruses, and then delete the offending entries without the need to boot into safe mode.
Finally, I cannot give enough emphasis to the need to switch to Linux - really guys, with virtualization you don't even need a dual boot, and you can still run your favorite windows programs without any hassle - unless you're a gamer, but aren't the freedom and safety worth it?
This is an old, old tactic.
Microsoft has done the "when Windows version n+1 ships, immediately admit that Windows version n was crap" thing since Windows 95 appeared.
Maybe this time they're just being more aggressive about it, since XP is so firmly entrenched and all the compelling features that would have driven Vista upgrades were stripped out so they could actually ship it. They can market it all they like, but it's already got the reputation of being a trouble-plagued, warmed-over version of XP with a GUI that's a bad attempt at copying OS X's.
~Philly
I hate to say it, but I agree with the grandparent. It's probably trying to write into Program Files or into the computer's Registry (as opposed to the user's home folder or the user's registry) when it prompts you. Have you called up the company to ask about Vista compatibility?
I have Vista Ultimate, and UAC for me is simply not an issue. I get it sometimes when I want to change settings, but only settings where it makes sense to get it. (Like going into the Services administrator tool, or the GUI for my anti-virus.) I do have some gripes; for instance, it would be nice to see what services are running without needing a prompt, and then just getting prompted when I try to stop or restart one, but that's a relatively minor gripe.
I think most people's bad experiences with UAC are simply from badly-designed software. No, EA, Battlefield: 2142 doesn't need a UAC prompt; the fact that a video game is doing anything to trigger that means that it's doing something very wrong.
Comment of the year
I hate - hate, hate hate hate, the 1-5 second pause, as the UAC messagebox appears. (The screen goes black, then cuts back in to show the UAC box, with everything else greyed out)
I also hate the "You'll need to provide Administrator" message box, followed by the above mentioned UAC lock-out and "Are you really sure?" message box. It's akin to saying we've added security features because a file copy requires 16 confirmations before it will proceed. "Are you really, really, really, really...."
Otherwise, Vista ain't that bad.
Excellent, according to the summary's author I should still be driving a car with no emissions filters, no seat belts, no rear view mirrors, and filling it with leaded fuel. Otherwise, everything I did in that past will be wrong...
Darn, where did I put that CP/M boot disk?
Why should Apple and the Open Source Software community wait for Microsoft to self destruct? Shouldn't they keep working toward bettering their own software rather than being spectators?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Microsoft wasn't late to this party; Windows NT 4 worked just fine when logged in as a non-admin. Microsoft's army of software developers, however, never got the hint. Now that Vista basically forces them to follow the user-separation rules, they're actually starting to fix all the bugs their software had all along. Anybody who tried to run Windows 2000 or Windows XP as a regular user can vouch for that-- all (or almost all) Microsoft software worked fine, but very little third party software did.
Comment of the year
"I have yet to find a tool that allows me to treat zip files as part of the filesystem like Explorer does."
Gee, then you'd love linux. Doesn't matter whether you're using a gui or console app such as mc - you can transparently look inside zipped and tarballed files, even copying out individual files, without having to unzip the whole thing.
Kevin Smith on Prince
"Worthless apps"? "Point release service pack"? Maybe to you- but to the average user things like Time Machine are a godsend. Oh, and 10.4->10.5 is not a service pack. Dunno what you got with your copy of SP2, but it sure isn't as much of a change as upgrading to Leopard.
OSx86 FTW
You can tell that it's Microsoft's version for sure. Just look at the behavior of Ballmer... and, notice the "random feature" of generating flying chairs...
I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
Wow, nice rant. I liked most of it except for the tinfoil-hat ending about hiding remote access and moving it from place to place. I think the late Francis E. Dec might have agreed with you.
"You can't run the IE 7 on it, so you're stuck with Firefox."
"but XP comes included in the price when you buy a new PC"
There, made a few fixes for you.
-- Alastair
I've been using XP since day one at work. When it came out it was sluggish and really taxed my computer. Now, years later, XP is quick. It feels snappy and fast. It doesn't always seem to be low on RAM and it doesn't take much disk space. It doesn't crash and it's easy to use. In other words the OS footprint is low enough that I can use all of my applications at once without running into system limits. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Why switch to an OS that uses twice the resources to do the same work? I figure in a couple of years when Vista is replaced by whatever's next I'll finally switch to Vista.
WTF? Microsoft's business model is direct sales to customers. Why would they give a shit about advertisers? You live in a fantasy land.
Buggy - maybe.
Slow - maybe.
Insecure - prove it. Then try proving same thing for WinXP.
Don't confuse security issues with Microsoft marketing of their new product. There are four types of lies. Lies, big lies, statistics and marketing
We have always been at war with Eurasia, and Eastasia is our ally...
I take it these changes under the hood involved putting in a lot of 'wait' commands. I've refused to let anyone get Vista on a company machine so far, but our CEO went ahead and got himself a VAIO with a flippin 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, and it runs slower than other machines we have that are several years old. It's pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Also if you think that the other OSes haven't changed at all, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.. for one thing you shouldn't just talk about 'OS X', you should be thinking back to Mac OS in the 80s and considering the development on it since then. Also Linux has undergone an insane amount of development. Maybe the security practices haven't changed that much, but that's because they're actually sensible, and work, unlike one other OS that I can think of (which you appear to want to mate with..)
which is totally what she said
I was in a meeting Thursday with a guy from Microsoft who defended the brilliance of Vista by telling us all that he got Vista on his new box, a quad core machine with 4G RAM, and said "It runs really smoothly -- the working set's only about one or one and half gigs or RAM." He then want on to say that hardware configuration is going to be really common pretty soon. It was all I could do to shake my head and keep my mouth shut.
It seems that Microsoft thinks that as soon as a new version of Windows comes out, all Windows users must immediately buy a brand new, maxed out system, install Vista and throw out whatever they had before. It's really just mind-bending how the hardware gets faster and faster, and Microsoft continues to come out with point zero versions of their operating system that demands new hardware.
If Microsoft were as smart as I thought they were, they'd happily continue to sell XP (instead of being forced into it by the marketplace), but focus new development on Vista, and work on getting the bugs out of Vista in the meantime. I am so tired of hearing MS fanatics expostulating that the latest Release Candidate is 'rock solid' for them. It was tiring when Windows 95 was in development, and it still tiring a dozen years later.
Then again, I must be in the minority -- I have Windows 98 on an old P-450, and Linux on two other systems, but I manage to get a lot done.
Yeah, well, MY SP2 makes the firewall start BEFORE the networking is enabled. So there.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
No, Stallman pisses on himself. In public.
SP1 will reduce the number of prompts.
Tell your friend to run codeblocks as an administrator.
why do you think we patch and patch and patch and patch and for every patch a new vulnerability shows up? because the patch only moves the remote access capability from one hiding place to another it doesn't remove it. and never will. Interesting extension of the Windows Update client and the Vista DRM disaster, but not wholly incorrect. AT&T's u-Verse product is a Windows CE application that heavily ties back to the server. There are certain customer advantages to server based scheduling of programs, for instance. There are provider advantages to IPTV, such as not needing full streams of everything.
However, the server based information could be stored in a non-provider readable format, and the streams could be done more efficiently via multi-casting, but that latter step would require, at least in AT&T's case, that MS fix their network stack.
I personally will probably return to Dish service, since a non network/phone connected DVR has exactly 0 possibility of reporting back what I watch. And I like it that way. Or maybe I'll just go with OTA HD programming. I don't watch that much TV lately anyways.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Just a few years ago Microsoft was pitching the world on how secure and cool XP was. Now it's telling us largely the opposite, implying that XP is a security threat
Just a few years ago, we were told to upgrade to Linux because of how secure and cool it was. Now, we are told largely the opposite, implying that we should upgrade to newer versions of SELinux because the older kernels posed a security threat.
6 years ago, Windows XP WAS secure and cool, for the most part. Shit changes in 6 years, subby.
Tell your friend to run codeblocks as an administrator
Really? Another instance where a sane security model was ignored.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Actually, MS (until a few years ago) was very bad at this, never paying dividends, etc. Oh, the company was worth quite a bit, but they never returned the value to the shareholders, instead, using that cash on hand to grow.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Er, I am a software developer who has to work on Linux, Mac OS X and Windows (XP and Vista). And believe me, Linux and Mac OS X have both changed drastically under the hood since their initial releases. Look at Linux kernel version 0.9 versus the kernel 2.6 series; device access methods are vastly improved, memory management is a whole ton better, and outside of the kernel, the libraries in userland have moved forward quite frequently. As for OS X, Mac OS X 10.0 was damn near unusable for anything except legacy NeXTStep software, but 10.5 is actually the least-painful OS to develop for of any I deal with. (Not trying to show bias, just that Leopard's system APIs are very polished even compared to Tiger, and I personally find the developer documentation less painful to wade through than Vista's.)
Many changes in Vista are simply immediately apparent to even end-users, because there is a ton of new eye-candy (in addition to the extensive under-the-hood reworkings). Leopard, most of the important changes are under-the-hood modifications (better access to filesystem, such as the FSEvents API, the new 64-bit throughout setup, system self-signing of downloaded applications, etc.), with less new eye-candy, but speaking as a developer, there are some equally sweeping changes under the hood.
Every operating system progresses as time goes on, as long as it is still in active development. Windows, Linux, Mac OS X...
--Rachel
The long boot times. Oh, you reboot? Well, fair enough. I'll trade you that against the time that I've never wasted activating or hacktivating XP.
The lack of OS-level zip file support. Granted.
Lack of wifi support. If 2K has no wifi support, then how am I posting this?
Lack of support for certain software (granted, this is a software problem, but XP supports more of the software I need). What software? Some games are beginning to have issues, but nothing that a 5 minute Google hasn't fixed so far. What software that you "need" doesn't run on 2K?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I remember when Apple was saying Intel processors sucked and that RISC was the way to go. Also, OS9 was awesome.
Back in 2001, while I was a Unix systems admin at a private boarding school, I remember cutting out and pasting on my wall an ad for W2K that Microsoft ran
It was an actual screen print of a BSOD which the user was supposed to cut out and paste to their monitor if they were missing the BSODs of Windows98, etc.
Before I realized that it was an ad FOR Microsoft, BY Microsoft I remember saying out loud "Oh boy... Someone has finally just come right out and said it, and I am sure Microsoft is gonna make them pay..."
Here's a link to a story about it. I wonder why they didn't print the ad too. (besides the obvious reasons)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/01/17/ms_using_the_old_blue/
Windows is not the answer.
Windows is the question.
The answer is "NO."
No activation. It's so important that I'll say it again: no activation.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Warning! You've entered the Microsoft Reality Distortion Field.
While it **looks** like a proper unix-ish escalation at the gui level, it most certainly is not at the OS level. UAC is not and does not prevent privilege escalation in the same manner as a unix-ish OS.
UAC is permeable. Despite Microsoft's efforts to paint it as unix-ish, it is not. It is nothing like it. Mark Russinovich describes UAC's massive shortcomings in great technical detail.
I'm all for using the best tool for the job. In fact I make my living babysitting windows boxes, but Vista is not the best tool for the unknowing user as a desktop.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Normally I'd say that when I had the "pleasure" of meeting RMS that he did indeed smell mildly of urine. However, I won't, because all of the zealots who haven't met him would go hog-wild troll rating me.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It's ok to capitalize the first letter in a sentence, use a period at the end, and not abuse asterisks. It really is.
Well then, you've come to the right place! Welcome to Slashdot!
but they are willing to spend decades losing money( 10's of billions of dollars ) doing nothing but protecting their 3 cash cows( MS Windows, MS Office, MS Server ). They have failed almost completely at growing their business outside of profits from those 3 product lines and lost billions of their shareholders money doing so. Microsoft is a dinosaur and why institutions have not started shoveling out Microsoft stock over the last 8 years is amazing and it just goes to show you how dumb about technology the money managers are. All that crap about a new version of MS Windows making Microsoft billions more was/is dumb because WinVista is just another preload just like WinXP and Win2k were before. Microsoft can't start charging any, or much more for it either. They need the preloads of WinVista to also force upgrades of MS Office and other software but because they have saturated the market, there's no really new market to sell to and they are just changing the name of the sale.
Microsoft is a publicly held company but they are failing at returning value to their shareholders. And the run-up over the last year will fall before too long because there are no new profits from any business other than their big three profit makers. none, only losers and Google is forcing them to spend billions more in more attempts to keep idiots thinking Microsoft is the great software innovator and those will, like before, result in billions in losses. History is my witness. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Where did I say linux was perfect? I just said Ubuntu was finally less effort for me, a geek, than windows this time around.
I listed the problems I've had with it, that's not a rant.
That's only if you believe in short-term profits trumping long-term. Lots of business leaders got their education in the 80's, and it's now en-vogue to just cut costs, always cut costs, always show a profit RIGHT NOW, rather than set yourself up for future stability. Microsoft is working to make a profit right now, rather than working to make a product that will be well-received by the public and recommended by IT professionals. They've been riding the "Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft" wave for a long time, but the beach is coming up, and they better figure out what they're gonna do next. Screwing over their customers and alienating technical professionals who actually know something isn't a good idea in the long run.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I don't get why people hate UAC. As the previous posters describe, its just a version of sudo. UAC rarely triggers for me unless its a legacy app that is broken (which I can then Thinstall it so it forever remains in user mode regardless of how many admin perms it wants), or I'm doing an install or an upgrade.
UAC is excellent protection... but using DropMyRights.exe as a wrapper before launching executables in XP also provides almost as good protection, only allowing programs access as that user, and no administrative rights. You can also further restrict executables from touching the Registry by having stuff run as a constrained or untrusted user (but this breaks most stuff.)
Its a trade-off. UAC gives you excellent security, and has been a feature in every single OS since the days of IRIX's cpeople or Solaris's admintool allowing you to put in a password to do admin tasks without logging fully in as root. People can just run as root or turn off UAC for ease of use... but have to understand the consequences of one rogue app being able to run.
They both choose to put down XP and they work as hard as possible to get software written as "Vista Only" even when it is not Vista only software. Shadowrun anybody. The game was written for XP and DirectX 9 but the install looked for Vista and DirectX 10 before it would run.
Every new version of Apple OS touts hundreds of new features. By implication, that means that the previous version of the OS was missing hundreds of critical features. By now, the original OS 10 (X?) must not have had any features since there have been at least 1000 features introduced. Apple and everyone else uses the same logic to get you to buy the latest upgrade. I don't why what Microsoft is doing is any different. Apple routinely trashes the previous opperating system release (OS X 10.4 now missing 300 features!) to help you upgrade.
"haven't had startup programs blocked and not runnable. At worse, I'm notified and its easy to tell Windows to allow the program to run."
I get a popup each time and have to then click on the program from a dialog off the systray. EVERY damned boot. When i go into the control centre thingy I can see the various trust ratings and it lists the program as unrated, but gives me no way to rate it or allow it myself. this is a serious annoyance.
It's made worse by the fact that every boot Vista announces, almost proudly, that it has done this for me.
(The program is ext2fsd, an ext2 embeddable filesystem).
I forget the details of the other problems I had, it's weeks since I booted Vista now.
It's a sad state of affairs when Microsoft is its own biggest competitor.
We live in a strange, strange world. Fucked up, but strange.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
2.2 is buggy, slow, insecure, and sucks...
Impossible!! It's open source, which proves that your statement is a lie! OMFG!!!
And no. Windows XP and later are only required for Visual Studio 2008. Prior versions are supported on Win2K.
My blog
Graphics Card Manufacturers take the cake with previous versions.
Version n-1 does not:
- Run these demos. They are to weak(Reality is usually a hardcode version check in the demo).
- Run this new DXn Version.
- Look as cool.
Version n-1 is:
- Embarassingly limited is this or than pipline number/bus width
- Reflective of your tiny cock size.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
What, is reading between the lines a lost art these days?
/. summary is damned close to what the article implies. You can almost see the thought process: "How do we get people to upgrade to Vista without coming out and saying XP is crap?"
/. summary is a troll.
What the articles *states*, and what it *says*, are two different things. It states several things, but *says* a very specific thing.
The
It's kind of disingenuous of you to give a strictly-literal interpretation of the article to claim the
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
> "Allow/Deny?" is not a security model.
No, it is a blame transfer mechanism.
Microsoft won't fix the security, they will fix the blaming. With XP it was Microsoft's fault that your credit card was stolen, with Vista it is yours because you hit 'Allow'.
Let me get this straight, this guy is arguing that Microsoft main business model revolves around selling 0-day Windows exploits to media conglomerates. The wow starts here, on /.
"2.2 is buggy, slow, insecure, and sucks compared to the latest kernel."
Linux 2.2 still does the job it was designed to do. The 2.6 is better, but 2.2 is not bad even today. I would have no security qualms about using it if it had all the operational features I need.
The problem with Windows is that it is still largely the same as it was in the past. What Microsoft says about XP today was true about XP when Microsoft was presenting it as the greatest thing ever. It was the same pattern Microsoft used for NT 4. When Microsoft wanted to sell lots of copies of NT 4, it was the greatest thing ever. When Microsoft wanted to sell lots of copies of NT 5, NT 4 suddenly became an unmaintainable clusterfuck and NT 5 became the greatest thing ever. Rinse and repeat for every new version of Windows.
In a few years, Microsoft will want people to send in yet more money, so Vista will suddenly be marketed by Microsoft as an untrustworthy, unreliable, bug-ridden piece o' shit. The problem is that Vista is all those things already, but the Microsoft marketing machine will deny that until the next upgrade cycle is ready.
> 2.2 is buggy, slow, insecure, and sucks compared to the latest kernel.
No. That is just not true. 2.2 has fewer features and options compared to 2.6, but a complete 2.2 based linux can be booted from a single floppy to act as, for example, a gateway router and firewall. I used one on a 386 20MHz as my internet connection. It was none of your uninformed assertions, and certainly not 'insecure'.
You are merely extrapolating from Microsoft's marketing to assume that all products with earlier release numbers are 'buggy, slow, insecure, and sucks'. In fact the only reason that older software, such as Windows 3.11, seemed 'slow' was that it was running on hardware that was 40 to 4000 times less capable than current machines are:
Windows 3.11 486DX4 100 MHz 8 Mb RAM 80 Mb disk
Windows XP P4 2000 MHz 512 Mb RAM 80,000 Mb disk
Vista Duo 2x2000 MHz 2,000 Mb RAM 320,000 Mb disk
These will all give an adequate typing and printing speed.
They have always had documents from Microsoft for Partners and IT on how to justify the upgrade or sell the upgrade. The difference this time is that no one wants Vista, so it is a harder sell. (This was written on a Vista based laptop that is now a lot slower than it was before I upgraded. I had to to learn Vista because I am a Partner and Sys Admin.) I would not have Vista on any of the four computers I have if I didn't need to for my job. Yes is ways upgrading to Vista is more secure, but so is not connecting your computer to the internet. Both are about as useful. Microsoft really screwed the pooch on this one.
What did you expect them to say? "Please don't upgrade and provide our company with new revenue"
Business 101 was lost on the author of this article who thought this was deep and profound. Does Apple not do the same thing? Does the Linux community not do the same thing when new versions come out? What about other industries. Does Toyota and Honday not do the same thing?
SlashFUD indeed.
> You could install Firefox or Opera, but you probably think that's just silliness.
.net, and it's as easy to get well paid jobs developing using it.
I develop web sites/apps using Firefox, because I like the Firebug plug in, but it's silly to not test your work on the most recent version of the most popular browser - by far - on the market, isn't it?
> XP is not free. It is figured into the price of the computer you bought. This is why the $200 Asus laptop uses Linux rather than Windows--it would
> cost more to sell it with Windows on it.
I'm not poor, so I wouldn't buy a $200 laptop. Well done for finding a laptop which ships with Linux, though. It's less time consuming to get a Windows laptop and install Linux on it afterwards, though, should you wan't Linux. I'm a Windows-only developer, so such things don't interest me. Wake me up when there's a development environment as good as Visual Studio
> That's just your opinion. Mine, however, is that to willingly choose Windows over K/Ubuntu Linux is just ridiculous. But XP's activation and other
> privacy invasions (WGA anyone?) is what drove me away from Windows.
We've come a long way from Win2K vs XP, to Windows vs Linux. I don't have a problem with Linux - some of my mates use it. I don't have a problem with activation. Currently it's not an issue because I'm using a copy of Windows the company I work for pays for via MSDN, so I can have practically any Microsoft product I choose, for free, but in my previous company, where we swapped hard drives in and out of different PCs all the time I frequently had to register/activate (whatever you want to call it) XP because the hardware had changed. It was a 2 minute job which involved phoning a freephone number. I've never felt particularly violated about it - should I?
instead of having a brake pedal, GM decided to affix a bigger, sturdier bumper and expect the car to crash everywhere it went.
Yes, GM's job is to make money, but we also would hope that GM wasn't ran by idiots.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Microsoft's problem here is that the new feature this time round is the same new feature that led the promotion of the last release.
From tfa, "Security is the message".
Heh, yeah. mine too.
I just bought a new desktop with Vista preinstalled. This, would be supercomputer of 5-10 year ago, is crawling under Vista so I decided upgrade to XP. Works great, XP just screams! Next I'll fix a dual boot with Ubuntu. So, for work Ubuntu, for games XP. Now I'm soo happy without Vista!
I just wonder how much windows tax I had to pay for the preinstalled useless Vista.
Quick, everyone go read the microsoft article linked to and at the bottom of the page, where it says "was it helpful?" click NO!
See: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/borg-is-getting-desperate-on-vista.html. Made me laugh, at least....
How many have really used group policies? I'd hope anyone in a Windows domain environment would rely heavily on group policy.
It's one of the major weaknesses of Linux in a corporate environment. There's no GOOD centralized authentication and policy system.
While Ubuntu is inherently more secure the Windows, there's no way to enforce specific security/settings/behavior of machines on your network.
As a system administrator, we need to be able to enforce configuration on any workstations pluged into our network with a minimal amount of effort. With Windows XP, Active Directory and Group Policy, we can join a machine to the network, move it's object into the proper organizational unit, and every aspect of our established security and configuration is applied to that machine. Software gets installed, system is locked down, and everything is set up.
Linux is your answer, but it can't be my answer until I can get some of that functionality I get with Windows domains. I don't need it to be perfect, but we need a start.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
OP ED (reply)
all you can do is critique my writing style and tell me i live in fantasy land and use too many asterisks?
"RACF" stood for Resource Access Control Facility, and that is what that software provided.
and that is precisely what is needed in Ms Windows: restricted access to updating the system.
unless this issue is attended, and soon, it will be the end of our promiscuous friend Ms Windows. an un-secure system is not suitable for business and to a greater degree each quarter we are using Ms Windows for business purposes. both on the job and at home.
now sometimes i like to editorialize. and when i do that i will usually remember to mark my work as such. i don't always, sometimes i get in a hurry but if i do that i apologize.
Once again, XP VS Vista.
I've had the ahem "pleasure" of using both of these OS' and Microsoft's latest offering is less than stellar. I've been fairly happy with the XP/Office2k3 combo for users, and now am in a position where I must do some new purchases of vista/office2k7 and quite frankly as far as I am concerned, vista/office2k7 hands down cannot compete with the last-gen xp/2k3. It doesn't suprise me that microsoft is trying to get the IT pros to sell this to management. But as an IT professional who's used Microsoft based products for the better part of 15 years, I've never had a better business case to go with a non-microsoft product than I do now. So yes, they are promoting vista based on XP's shortcomings, but I think really they are trying to say just about anything to recoup their costs. I think Vista will go the way of Windows ME, as what I like to call "the Microsoft OS that everyone forgot about".
I don't understand how it offers anyone any useful protection from anything.
Suppose you download an installation package for some really neato whizbang gotta-have-it program. Like SuperDuperCutesyChat Deluxe, v9.0. Unbeknown to you, SuperDuperCutesyChat is a Trojan horse, laden with mal-ware of one kind or another.
When you run the installer, one way or another, you have to give the installer admin-level privileges. If your account is an admin account, you see a couple of UAC prompts. If your account is a user account, you get a privilege-escalation prompt and you have to enter the admin password.
Either way, the installer program runs with admin privileges, and can do anything to your system. It can install spy-ware, key-loggers, spam-bots -- anything and everything. If the bait program is something that plausibly requires network access (like SuperDuperCutesyChat) it's quite likely the user will obligingly open up the firewall for it, too.
Perhaps it's wrong to think of UAC as a security feature. It's really a convenience feature. It gives a user the chance to do something administrative without logging out, logging in as Administrator, etc. Even so, I don't care for it. When I install a program, I often want to re-arrange where the icons are in the Start menu or change the working directories, etc. If I do this sort of fiddling by logging in to the Administrator account with UAC off, I can do everything I need pretty smoothly. If I do the fiddling through a user account with UAC on, I have to type the password maybe a dozen times before I'm done. Creating and naming a folder in Program Files involves four dialog boxes and two password entries, for Pete's sake. That's not convenient.
Unfortunately, in some versions of Vista, UAC is tied to file and registry virtualization, which is a useful, convenient backwards-compatibility feature. Turn off super-annoying UAC, and super-useful file/registry virtualization goes with it.
I can understand why Microsoft made some of the choices they did. But the end results are not inspiring.
Good point - but I can't help thinking - how hard would it have been for Microsoft to insert a "zone alarm" like control on protected files (effectively what they do in Vista now), so that when a misbehaving third party app tries to access a protected file, the user gets a "Application bla is asking to edit the registery, stop it, allow it once, or always allow it" kind of popup?
What they did get was a mysterious error, so the third party apps would just die without warning, driving users back to running everything as admin.
In fact, what would prevent someone from implementing this now under XP, so people could have better security without having to install Vista?
Anyone out there good at intercepting file system calls? I want royalties when you make your millions from the "SecureXP" product line!!
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
I know it's a quick call or Internet thing, but what if they start saying "no"? They've been starting to talk about it. They may never pull the plug on it, but I would rather not have to trust the company to always say "yes". You don't know that they will let you keep activating it. Also, the system as it is assumes the person is guilty until proven innocent, as the WGA failures of the last year or so have been showing. The fact that it fails at all scares me.
i doubt its doing anything with the registry or program files, as it's just an "unzip somewhere and run" and runs on linux as well.
we use it as it plays nice with our PCB mill and its software. it saves us from having to manually screw around with the gerber files.
this is the site for it here http://www.lis.inpg.fr/realise_au_lis/kicad/
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
You have two options:
1. Tell them "Sorry, things didn't pan out." and get your ass fired, watch your company go down in flames
2. Announce to the public just how AWESOME your new steaming pile of a product is and cover its failures in any way you can.
The unintentionally implied claim is that Vista is a failure - I'm not saying that, but I'm saying if it was we certainly couldn't expect honesty about it from Microsoft. Let's not be naive.
Have gnu, will travel.
Too bad there's no -1 Delusion or at the very least -1 Wrong. Really, what the hell are you talking about? A Windows installation has no, zero, nil advertisement venues. Anything you see on the internet is served by a browser, not an OS. As for what you're implying in the second part of your post, that has more in common with the Illuminati than anything worth discussing on /..
Simple answer is you create a "group", yes that's what it's called, and apply the policies to that aggregation of users.
Suppose the group is called, "EveryoneAtWork". Amazingly the group would be comprised of, wait for it... everyone at work. Anytime a policy change is made it will affect EveryoneAtWork.
The concept still needs a little fine tuning depending on one's organizational needs but conceptually it was implemented decades ago.
The 1-5 second pause for the UAC message box is caused by a combination of the UAC dialog being on a separate secure desktop object, and since Aero (which I'm assuming you're using) only supports the default desktop, it has to turn off temporarily to display the dialog. The background is a screenshot of the previous desktop put in the background.
You can turn off the switch to secure desktop for UAC prompts. This way, there is no switch and no pause/flicker. Due to the way that integrity levels work with window objects, you won't really be giving up any security, either.
As for explorer and its excessive confirmations (and the things it won't let you do directly, i.e. copy from network to elevation req. directory) are indeed stupid. Then again, the shell has always been one of Windows's worst integrated components, always fighting the way the rest of the OS operates. I was really hoping they were going to overhaul that for Vista...
Everything is just as you want it to be. For the vast majority of Windows users, the sort of argument that claims "MS is self-destructing itself with its contradictions" is meaningless in the sense that they will faithfully wait for an update, upgrade, or the next version of Windows to come along. They pay for MS to keep the paradox alive, because they are used to it and/or don't feel there's a problem with it and/or it's not at the top of their priorities.
Linux users, well, they can poke fun at, create theories of how MS will screw itself up, and all of that. Because they're looking at MS products with a totally different purpose. They are looking at MS and its empire with a purpose unlike any Windows user. Linux comes with a sort of "messianic" or "liberatory" perspective that is trying to show the world, 'look! MS is evil, Windows sucks! We have something better! We can make something better and free!' but they just can't sell it because Windows users only have one reality: Windows. They fear the new (unless it's like Windows), they don't know how to change (it's become too big), nor think they have the time to change to something different (why change?). Maybe children or teenagers are a better target for different OS types. For they might have cleaner slates. Scramble.
What's left? Win2000? Ok, no problem - include that in your list of what's being dissed!
No sig today...
I hope you're meaning "large businesses" when you write "customers".
The usual capitalist-corporation strawman. Please, we've burnt that one a hundred times already. It's bullshit and a cheap excuse to "justify" any immoral and even illegal behaviour, as long as it yields a cent.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Skimming TFA I was struck by how most of the arguments and propaganda techniques could be applied - even moreso - to talking an IT department into replacing Microsoft OSes and apps with FOSS solutions.
Thanks, Microsoft!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
And got rid of both WinXP and WinVista in favor of a Mac instead ...
(confused sounds)
Oh, wasn't that the point?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well duh, the original poster is a genius.
And I'm *sure* that Ubuntu doesn't yell at me to install patches on a quite frequent basis. Yes, Windows has plenty of patches, but I have Vista on a smaller partition of my drive, and there have only been a few security updates since I got it in March of 2007. Also, I think that Apple has been much more aggressive in their persuit of this marketing data; Itunes gathers information on what songs you buy, what TV shows you watch, and is MUCH more DRM ridden than anything that Microsoft has ever produced. Also, there have been many, many versions of Itunes, most all of which were fairly small/useless upgrades that run horribly on x86 hardware (I have a Pentium 4 at 1.7g, and yes, Vista runs fine, while Itunes cannot play back a 320*240 movie). As for your comment on graphics-intensive web-pages, try Opera as a web browser. It can not load anything with an image tag while preserving blank space where that image would be, making a fast, pretty browser.
Yes, this may be news to you, but businesses can also purchase products.
I have yet to find a tool that allows me to treat zip files as part of the filesystem like Explorer does.
I feel the opposite. I find it very jarring to have zips that look like part of the file system but don't act like it.
I remember using a tool called zipmagic that really made zips act like part of the filesystem but the version I had was 9x only and also it had the potential to break things that relied on zip files acting like files.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
That is still returning value to the shareholders - by increasing the monetary value of the shares they own.
Companies really start paying up dividends when, clearly, that can't keep up as the most efficient way to convert cash into shareholder value (and they can't convince shareholders otherwise).
That's the one thing that I dislike about the zip support. It only shows files and directories, and while I can "open" a file, I can't do anything but that. I would like to, for example, open a file using an external program, but since the file is in a zip file, it can only be "opened", "cut/copied", and queried for properties. If they are going to support the viewing of files as if they were part of the filesystem, I'd like it to be able to act like it is viewing any old normal file.
On the idea that I put myself at risk, and continue to do so, is it safe to say Microsoft owes me money for creating a dangerous product where my identity has been severely compromised? Maybe... I'm just waiting for that self destruct sequence. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5,...
MS isn't selling software, that's a side effect. They sell hope. Hope that the next version will be safer (it isn't), will be more efficient (it isn't, especially if you take into account the relearning time - that cost is always "overlooked"), is innovative (only in selling, marketing and subversion techniques) and will allow you to be one up on your competitor (who can buy the same software).
A proper TCO calculation will demonstrate that very clearly, that's why they try to prevent comparisons.
IMHO, buying Microsoft is more and more looking like a serious business risk.
Insert
Set up your Adblock filters. When you see an advert that you don't like, Adblock the whole domain that the advert comes from.
Your speed of surfing will improve ; the sites that make their advertising too intrusive will die. Everyone is happy (apart from the advertising industry, who as professional liars should be initiated into their industry by hanging, drawing and quartering ; twice).
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I'm expecting future windows XP updates to do quite opposite, to bloat XP kernel until they make it slower than any Vista out there. At some point, Vista will become valuable upgrade to anyone willing to stay on Microsoft's rails.
You forgot to say that Microsoft will also not ever produce the perfect O/S, because nobody will buy their new versions. Job security/company security == program insecurity.
no hate involved: hat is an emotion.
the issue is Ms Windows is not secure and we have to have secure systems, for business -- both at home and at work: for all that we do.
the object is to embareass Ms to the point where she cleans up her act or to encourage the development of OpenSource
look what happened to Big Blue. Alligateor Computing is headed for the same swamp.
Originally, Windows was a single-user system. Instead of going the Unix way, they should have gone the virtual O/S way: each user, after logon, has a COPY of the system to himself/herself, and can destroy it if he/she wishes. But the original installation can not be ever destroyed.
it will not be acceptable to stay on Ms indefinitely.
for the moment, putting on all the recommended security patches is considered doing an adequate job ( doing all possible ) of insuring security
sooner or later the truth about the king's latest outfit will have to be recognized: the security patches have not produced a secure system and there is no longer any reason to expect that will change in the future.
in other words: scuttle the bucket
About 2 years ago, my university invited a micorosoft promoter to talk about Vista. The majority of the time he talked about the security. He started with a comparison between XP and Linux. Who ran root as standard in XP and who ran root standard in Linux. He said that XP security sucked since it was too easy(and convenient) to run as standard root. After that he claimed that Vista had improved security considerably and that we should all download it(we have a deal with MS at our university).
I seriously doubt that this is a unique form of presentation regarding OS promotion.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I worked this out years ago. It is not in Microsofts interest to sell a safe and stable operating system...
It needs the bugs. It needs the flaws. Otherwise it doesn't get to sell that same product to you over and over again.
All antivirus programs worth their salt already do this (except clamav, afaik, but clamav is free so you're still getting your money's worth).
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
I really loved it when Steve Jobs was pontificating how amazingly advanced the PowerPC chip was one month and then the following month switched to Intel because the x86 was so much superior.... Mac users just swallowed it whole.
If you are making this claim from a user perspective, then it is just plan bullshit. A properly setup Linux system works very similar to the behavior of which people are used (by this I mean if you are transitioning people, you set it up a certain way that is very different from the way a Guru would set his system up.) There is a file menu (not so w/ Vista by default!) , you use a menu by clicking in the lower left corner of the screen, etc. I have seen user after user, with varying levels of expertise, quickly and easily make the transition to a good Linux setup.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Very late in the day, but I just wanted to post to say thank you for the above; it was very useful.