Microsoft don't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist, look at the code the call "secure" and how many exploits are found daily for it. This is them supposedly trying NOT to have exploits. They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies, as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders. So just because Microsoft don't intentionally create back doors for the NSA means nothing.
Like any other intelligence agency, spying on people who use Windows would be a prime goal, but there's plenty of malware out there to do that, with Microsoft and the security industry formed to fix the holes left by Microsoft's technical incompetence can only fix so much. There's no reason why the NSA couldn't develop their own malware with VB and run it like any other criminals, without any collusion with Microsoft at all.
Given the fact that Windows is as secure as a paper tank at the best of times, and the governments of the world seem to want to insist that people use Windows, it's mot hard to imagine Microsoft suits using the "hey if you force your people to use our software, you can spy on what they do with them much easier" as a reason NOT to support calls for a FOSS / Linux switch.
Given how many crimes Microsoft get away with in more jurisdictions it's also not hard to imagine a meeting where Microsoft agree to turn a blind eye to malware from certain sources in return for cases being dropped, or friendly judges put on the case who will promptly find in favour of Microsoft, and dismiss any logical evidence that they've done anything wrong.
As far as "it's in our interests to make Windows secure as we use it", how much of the US defense network still use Windows? I've noticed some have switched to Linux, while Microsoft had to create a special "secure XP" for them because the regular one wasn't up to the task. How easy would it be for the entire network to switch to Linux to protect itself while endorsing Windows for everyone else as it gives them and easy target to hit if they need to? They could even get Linux to pretend it's Windows when queried so nobody outside would know.
Remember most govt departments are VERY partisan, they don't like to co-operate as much as they should. They don't like sharing stuff that would help everyone because if only they do it and look good, they look even better in comparison to other departments who didn't do it. The contrast is even wider.
The BSA are a lobby group for Microsoft. They act in the interests of Microsoft. A major cash cow for Microsoft's Windows is that you really have to try hard to find any new PC without Windows already pre-installed. Microsoft know that average people don't know how to change that, and that they often sticj with what is pre-installed until it screws up badly enough that they go buy a new PC with the same flaws. They try to ensure that the customer never thinks there is any choice, that all PC's need Windows, when many other alternatives exist. They exploit people's ignorance.
A key part of laws allowing this is the BSA / MS line that "if PCs are sold without Windows already on it, people would install stolen copies of Windows on it". This assumes they are the peoples choice, rather than the default that people can't avoid. The idea is flawed.
People who are so desperate to use a version of Windows without paying for it, and have the skills to install an operating system (it's not hard but it does involve a little more technical knowledge than the average user possesses) will do so regardless of what OS comes pre-installed when they buy their PC. If all they could buy was Ubuntu and they couldn't live without their Photoshop etc they would wipe Ubuntu and put Windows on. If all they could buy was Vista and they wanted a more stable Windows they'd wipe it and install XP.
Microsoft use these lobbying proxies to build pressure, compile favorable studies etc all pushing lawmakers to enshrine their practices, and protect against actually having to compete for customers. Using the emotional linkage to stuff most of us accept is wrong like terrorism, drug smuggling, arms smuggling, people smuggling, counterfeit gangs, prostitution etc they seek to blind us with emotional reactions rather than see the real picture going on.
The whole proprietary model with hype making products the accepted product leader leads directly to illegal copies of software being sought after and installed by people who either can't afford the official prices, or refuse to see them as value for money for what they're getting. When companies "sell" software that's actually not a sale, it's a license to run a copy of that software under strict instructions, it's a deception right from the start. Microsoft have never "sold" a single piece of software in their entire history, yet they still claim to be the best selling OS and Office suite. Again this is exploiting people's ignorance.
Remember the BSA's audience is lawmakers and Microsoft's corporate partners, not end users.
This type of look back is great for one thing. It outs the shills. All of the glowing reviews around this pre-release stage for Vista were done by MS shills and partners who all sought to convince people to go buy-buy-buy. People's real experiences started to get in the way after it was released and the balance changed. Then MS's perception management had to start earning their money by trying to shout louder than real users and of course mod bombing sites like/. and digg to ensure reality never gets much attention. The sites who did glowing reviews had to gradually shift their initial praise in the face of losing credibility with their readers.
Switch forward to the same point in the Windows 7 pre-release, and it's history repeating itself, with all the same sites doing glowing reviews of Windows 7. The agenda is the same, they just hope you won't notice it. If MS are to be believed, Windows 7 is an awesome release with a lot of improvements. In that case the paid shills will (for once) be reporting something close to the experiences real people will have. If however Windows 7 is what many suspect it is, the Mojave Experiment in a box, then they will have exposed themselves as MS shills once again.
The Mojave Experiment for those who don't know was an advertising ploy by MS to try and reverse peoples perceptions about Vista. They told people who had a negative opinion about Vista that they were getting a chance to play with the new OS from Microsoft called Mojave, and that Microsoft wanted feedback to make it better. They secretly filmed people playing with an OS for a short time, then afterwards asked them what they though of it, only to reveal it was actually Vista and capture their "wow" responses on film. Like all MS ploys it's based on deception.
1 - They deceived people that it wasn't Vista when it was. 2 - They tweaked the (no doubt REAL high spec) PCs to ensure all the hardware worked perfect, with all the UAC warnings etc already pre-configured not to give any hassle. 3 - They have plenty of MS employees floating around to ensure the users only play with the parts they are intended to play with, leading their actions. 4 - They only allow people a short time with a pre-configured PC so the likelyhood of any normal "Windows reality" events like a new infection alert happening in that time frame are almost zero. I wouldn't be surprised if the experiment used an intranet and blocked the internet to make double sure. 5 - They gloat about the ability to deceive people. It was designed as an advert.
Mojave did teach them a couple of things, the result is Windows 7.
1 - Vista is skinable. 2 - People are gullible enough to believe slick deceptive sales staff feeding them a heap of BS.
These people are shameless. They will say whatever they feel they need to to get their pay cheque from Microsoft. They will also never admit to being paid to praise Windows. The label of "independent" carries more weight in the readers eyes. These reviews put the spotlight on who has sold out, and consequently should receive a backlash in terms of readership, sponsorship, partnership etc
They also serve as a fortune cookie, as you can bet these same sites will already be gushing over Windows 8 in draft documents, no doubt without ever having seen or heard anything about MS's next vaporware OS.
Obviously the MS astroturf army on./ are gonna mod this down as flamebait, they're only doing their jobs after all but the evidence is there for all to see. The interwebs is good at archiving evidence. Watching how those sites handle Windows 7 now, and comparing that to the user perception of Windows 7 will be another indicator.
Remember that MS try the same tricks with EVERY new version of Windows. Up until Vista, people's perceptions haven't been so at odds with the marketing image. Yes ME was very bad, but the size and affordibility of a PC with an internet connection has changed dramatically since then. The world ME was released
An OS is needed to run a PC. Windows is not. There are plenty of OSs including Windows. The car analogy only works in this case if you say we force retailers to sell cars with a choice of engine makers, or a choice of wheel makers. In the case of cars, they are designed to only work with their own wheels and engines so it wouldn't work. PC's work with any OS, it's only software after all.
You can buy a PC without Windows, plug it in and it's all ready to use. That is of course if an alternate OS like Linux has been installed instead of Windows. It's about giving consumers the choice, which is something MS are terrified of.
What would you expect the MS official line to say? They need people to be suckered into paying for 3rd rate software, not getting it free of charge, so they use the same old lines about it containing malware, supporting terrorism etc. Like any upstanding corporate crooks, they will pull figures from thin air to support their agenda and exagerate whenever possible. Their role is to pressure governments into giving their backers even more legally backed powers to shaft consumers and will use whatever sob stories (fact or fiction) to get that. When you see a story from BSA you may as well read that as a story direct from MS themselves.
Yep, like the Indian workers who are given training in entertainment shows and sports references to fool the caller they didn't just dial half way round the world.
"Hello my name is Hank"
I'm guessing it'll force the non-English native writers to be better at pretending, and force the US based writers to add more mistooks in to try and make people think they're not in the US, so the laws don't apply to them.
Gotta love these honest corps huh? Anytime a law comes in that forces them be be honest they'll seek a way round it to continue shafting people.
That would be the subsidized trialware model. If you have plenty of companies paying to have their 30 day trial shit installed on every box, it offsets the cost of Windows, giving the illusion that Windows is free when it's not. Retailers should be forced to provide a Windows refund form with every sale of a new PC, since they refuse to offer the customer the choice of actually buying it without Windows. They should also be forced to list it as a separate item in the pricing, as it's not a requirement to run the PC.....of course doing that would let the whole trialware racket out of the bag too.
"The first rule about the backlash from last time, is that you don't talk about the backlash from last time. Seriously, if never happened. Any employees caught even hinting that there was a backlash will be punished severely."
Anonymous memo from inside Apple HQ./sarcasm.
On a more serious side, maybe they decided that the reason it went wrong before was that they weren't sneaky enough, not that people took exception to the act. Remember Apple still own that expensive shiny object, not you. That has to factor into the mindset of deciding whether or not the owner of the unit can make those decisions, or whether it should be left to a mere user to know what's good for them.
Are you breaking the terms & conditions of the party if you don't cripple Ubuntu and OSX to ensure Windows 7 is the clear winner in every case? The last thing Microsoft would want after giving you a free randomly generated number on a sticker is their software actually getting a fair comparison. They don't pay a fortune on astroturfers for nothing you know.
You've forgotten to take into account that the MS board are living in the 90's. They missed the news the rest of us saw about IT evolving beyond them. They still believe they are the top dog who can do whatever they want and people will swallow it.
For a second I read that as "bring it on Yahoo" meaning for Yahoo to now match it. I keep forgetting about MS-Search-Rebranded (version whatever it is now).
This part could also describe MS's very own "Get The Facts" site.
'used malvertisements to distribute malicious software or present deceptive websites that peddled scareware to unsuspecting Internet users.'
Their site does not distribute MS software, but it is nothing but lies and deception aimed at pulling the wool over unsuspecting internet users by scaring them into using Windows which leave them and their private more prone to every piece of malware going today, and the millions created from today onwards.
Market share done by sales in the US alone is inaccurate, not to mention being done by companies to favor their customers. If you extend that count outside the US, then Apple hardly gets a mention in many countries because people simply can't afford them. They do have a presence in the developed nations where some people can afford them however.
Even if you take a ratio of hits to a website it's not accurate as some websites will appeal more to some users than others. If you take the count of downloads of a linux distro to equal one sale that's also inaccurate as the same disc can be used as a live CD only, or installed on several PCs. If you count by IP address it can also be inaccurate as many PCs are behind routers, so one IP address may account for 100's or 1,000's of PCs behind it. One download = One sale could be a decent guide on the theory that each use will average itself out to a one-to-one. Now all we need is to have each distro count every download, which many don't (or can't) from every source.
In short I don't buy the BS put out by partners of MS or Apple about market share. I reckon both Apple and Linux are pretty close in numbers. I'm not going to explain mono culture for a third time just because you didn't understand it.
This is not about being able to install apps, or setting a Mac up to do things. It's about someone with malicious coding intent knowing that by examining ONE Mac and writing their app to exploit a file that came with it, be it a library file, a bug in a config file, or a tweak to something like Safari. They can rely on EVERY Mac having those files installed, configured with the same exploit. Even if you install and use Firefox, do you remove Safari? What about iTunes? Even assuming you do that with the applications, the culture still exists for the stuff under the surface that you can't remove.
By comparison, if someone finds an exploit in Gnome in Ubuntu, for the short time that the window is open, it may only affect Gnome, but in other distros. It may not affect Fedora because of the way Fedora package Gnome. People who don't use Gnome at all won't be affected at all. If you find an exploit in Firefox on Fedora, it may affect every Fiefox, it may not for the same reasons, the distros package their own, often with their modifications. Those who don't like Firefox don't have it installed and are not affected.
Updates are going on all the time from both the distribution end and the upstream end which means that there's every chance someone else will spot the exploit you have, and patch it before you can get your malware written and deployed. Linux is a hugely diverse setup, which makes it a small moving target. You're not going to waste your time trying to hit that, specially when it all the development happens in the open.
Actually no, they're not. Every Mac has a set list of apps, with a set list of libraries etc. It's a mono culture. Not to mention the fact that Apple are insane about secrecy, so Mac users often don't know if there's a vulnerability even reported to Apple, let alone if Apple are doing anything about it, or when it's due if they are. Notice the common theme of "being subservient to Apple's whims". With Linux anyone can submit the fix, which will then be adopted as needed by all the different distros, and within a couple of days at most it's fixed. Also the fact that Linux is so varied, often an exploit or vulnerability found on one distro may not affect another, or not affect a different DE or WM.
Let's assume the Mac share is around the same as Linux, both close to 10% which I think ain't too far off. An attacker can plan an attack on something they're guaranteed exists because it comes out the factory that way on every model, identical, with a slow acting vendor so the windows stays open for a while.....or they can plan an attack on a fast moving target that may only affect 30% of machines, and the window of opportunity will be gone within a day of it being noticed.
Both Mac and Linux users tend not to run any protection software like Windows users NEED just to have their system stay alive till lunchtime, so any infection if successful will likely go unnoticed. Both Mac and Linux users often feel their systems are immune. In the case of Mac users, the people who can afford Macs have money (or at least HAD money before they bought their Mac) so combined with a blind spot for self protection they should be a ripe juicy target. Yet, apart from the odd story like this one which is self inflicted by Apple, it's still rare.
OSX is UNIX, which is a HUGE advantage over Windows, but the closed Apple mono culture prevents it from being used to it's fullest.
You can hardly blame people for not allowing automatic updates, given how MS abuse them. Critical updates SHOULD be about the security of the OS, it should be an essential patch to fix some exploit. That's all. Yet MS decided that it was "critical" for Windows users to be able to tell if their copy was legit with the WGA. Even the word "advantage" being used in the title is wrong. It's a critical ADVANTAGE for MS's revenue stream to be able to tell that, end users (with the exception of corporate setups who could be audited) don't care.
Another news story about a known exploit that has been updated in Vista but it won't be updated in XP? Is that the users fault too? I guess the blame lies with the user in not spending a lot of money to buy a sticker with a new number on it for a new OS they don't want (if they did want it, they'd have upgraded already). Which is a perfect example of why the proprietary model will fail. It's based around the needs of the companies profits rather than the end users needs.
Microsoft did try the option of restricting updates to only WGA approved licensed copies, but were slammed for contributing (even more than they already do) to the chaos on the internet. They had to backtrack and allow unlicensed copies to receive critical updates, while holding back the optional ones like new features, or new versions of apps like IE and WMP for WGA approved PCs.
But as we all know, MS are never responsible for their own mess, it's always looking for others to blame.
I agree with you, we do need to put it in perspective.
ONE small Linux botnet found recently because of badly configured systems? It's a tiny drop in the ocean. Is that in any way close to sharing blame with Windows for their 1,000's of LARGE botnets being actively used? Microsoft like to spread FUD about Windows market share being almost total, with Linux and OSX hardly getting a mention. They're right, but it seems they're talking about the botnet scourge ALL PC users have to suffer, regardless of our choice of OS. Microsoft have the malware and botnet market all but sewn up, thankfully it's a market no other OS wants. Given how Linux and OSX are built it's something they'll never grow into either, regardless of how popular they get.
Indeed, the recent story about ONE Linux botnet, and another recent story about ONE Mac botnet is equal to the 100's if not 1,000's of ACTIVE Windows botnets, past, present and future. As much as Microsoft enjoy a good monopoly when it's their name on the door, this is one they earned without corruption by making terrible software.
EVERY country needs to be doing this, and not making it voluntary either. Any problem on the internet affects everyone connected to it. Cutting off PCs in one country has limited effect in isolation. Considering botnets are an exclusive Windows problem, Microsoft should be forced to pay for the scheme too. It's their mess after all.
I'm curious about how MS will respond to this if it comes into being. On one hand they'll lose a large number of users, after all, does anyone outside the MS camp really believe that it's not gonna be 100% infected Windows PC's that will be affected? What will MS do?
Will they offer discounted or free vouchers for repairs, upgrades etc? How many of these machines will be unlicensed? Will they pay to fix unlicensed copies of Windows if the owners either have no money to spend on a sticker with a number on it? In the current economic climate you can't blame them. Is a subsidy to clean the PC worth the ISP's time and hassle knowing it'll be infected again by the end of the week at the latest, and they'll have to repeat the same warning and threat of disconnection all over again. Will they provide paid anti-malware software? Who pays for all of this? Will they provide training for Windows users to at least give them a chance of having a few months online without a letter?
This would reflect badly on MS in any free press, even having to be the only ones to offer fixes is embarrassing enough. Given that MS control the mainstream media it'll go unnoticed as far as PR is concerned, but it's yet one more thing eating into their profits at a time where they're struggling.
The alternative is to lose a large number either to Linux, or off the internet altogether. Anyone who's had the internet for a while knows what it's like when it goes down for a few hours, will those people really decide the internet is not worth it?
I'm guessing the great philanthropists and all round nice people at MS are busy lobbying at every level to stop this from happening or at least water it down (notice the ISPs are being "asked" not "told"). They need to keep market share by any means necessary, ideally without spending a cent on it. The rest of the world can suffer as long as MS's interests are not hurt.
Given that Windows has all the security of a paper tank in a thunderstorm this will be hilarious to see the workload the scheme entails, and over time the number of Windows PCs in Australia still connected because they're NOT infected. They will drop like flies. Give it a few years and it'll be a Windows free zone.
Everyones user experience if different in any product or service. The higher the price, the better people expect the user experience to be. If theirs matches their expectations, they perceive it as value for money. In many products that means a good set of defaults, and a workflow you're happy with. The downside is often more expensive parts or labor when things do need tended to, on a closed system which protects the manufacturers revenue stream over your choices to do things on something you bought....ie you paid money for an ownership (supposedly) changed hands. It's a trade off that some are happy with, while others are not. Often it'll be a case by case basis too.
For me Apple gadgets (apart from being closed platforms with crazy people in charge of approving apps) are now EVERYWHERE. They've become the gadget of choice for everyone, there's no "exclusivity" left with them. Apple (like other luxury brands) have a LOT of value in the fact that only a small percentage of people can buy them, you pay the extra to attach yourself to that social clique. When you see everyone from grannies, to chavs, kids to business-people all with iPods, do you want to be thought of as just another sheep going with the crowd and unable to choose anything other than what the media tell you is the "hot" thing today? Think what happened to the Burbury brand when it became the brand of choice for hooligans.
When you buy a gadget nobody knows why you've chosen that one, just like politicians don't know which issues made you vote for them, or not vote for them. They don't know if you are tech literate and have chosen the iPod because it suits your needs better than anything else. All that counts in the vote, or the lil white earbuds. How many people are desperate to fit in and will buy the "hot" gadgets without really understanding what they're buying and how it compares to the competition? In short, there's no "look at my cool new gadget" with Apple anymore, where a non-Apple device can still do that, not to mention it's often cheaper for better spec......oh and not controlled by Apple's insane policies over what you can or can't do with YOUR device.
So, brand snobbery? Maybe, I wouldn't be seen dead with an Apple gadget for several reasons, only one of which is that I don't want to be wrongly perceived as a sheep. We all have choices, so each to their own.
"Calling people with certain beliefs gullible/funny/stupid is just cruel."
In some cases that could be true, in others, like the Scientology example, it also happens to be true. I have no problem calling a spade a spade, when if the spades are busy trying to convince people they're shovels, and want all references to spades silenced.
Exactly, a netbook is not a cheap laptop, it was never intended to be. If you buy one expecting it to be, you're gonna be disappointed. The question for me comes down to how you came by that conclusion. Did you decide for yourself or did the sales staff decide to sell you the cheapest "PC" they had even though they knew it wasn't suitable just to make the sale? Many people falling prey to these sales people and stores will be unhappy with their purchases. This is a large part of the reason why netbooks are returned. They are being mis-sold.
If you try hard enough you can convince yourself that anything is a good thing and should be protected, look at Scientology for example. It's pathetic and funny, but there's always some gullible people ready to exclaim it. There's one thing to be a fan, to accept it's pro's and con's and love it anyway, to want to see it get better. It takes an extra step to be blind to the short comings and defend stuff that's NOT in their interests using mental gymnastics. What makes it even funnier is Apple's "luxury" price tags, these people are not only defending stuff that's not in their interests, but they're paying a fortune for the privilege. As they say, "a fool and his money are easily parted".
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft don't need to have actively created a back door for one to exist, look at the code the call "secure" and how many exploits are found daily for it. This is them supposedly trying NOT to have exploits. They already have back doors for DRM control and instructions to please their real customers ie other companies, as well as their own WGA all for the common enrichment of rights holders. So just because Microsoft don't intentionally create back doors for the NSA means nothing.
Like any other intelligence agency, spying on people who use Windows would be a prime goal, but there's plenty of malware out there to do that, with Microsoft and the security industry formed to fix the holes left by Microsoft's technical incompetence can only fix so much. There's no reason why the NSA couldn't develop their own malware with VB and run it like any other criminals, without any collusion with Microsoft at all.
Given the fact that Windows is as secure as a paper tank at the best of times, and the governments of the world seem to want to insist that people use Windows, it's mot hard to imagine Microsoft suits using the "hey if you force your people to use our software, you can spy on what they do with them much easier" as a reason NOT to support calls for a FOSS / Linux switch.
Given how many crimes Microsoft get away with in more jurisdictions it's also not hard to imagine a meeting where Microsoft agree to turn a blind eye to malware from certain sources in return for cases being dropped, or friendly judges put on the case who will promptly find in favour of Microsoft, and dismiss any logical evidence that they've done anything wrong.
As far as "it's in our interests to make Windows secure as we use it", how much of the US defense network still use Windows? I've noticed some have switched to Linux, while Microsoft had to create a special "secure XP" for them because the regular one wasn't up to the task. How easy would it be for the entire network to switch to Linux to protect itself while endorsing Windows for everyone else as it gives them and easy target to hit if they need to? They could even get Linux to pretend it's Windows when queried so nobody outside would know.
Remember most govt departments are VERY partisan, they don't like to co-operate as much as they should. They don't like sharing stuff that would help everyone because if only they do it and look good, they look even better in comparison to other departments who didn't do it. The contrast is even wider.
The BSA are a lobby group for Microsoft. They act in the interests of Microsoft. A major cash cow for Microsoft's Windows is that you really have to try hard to find any new PC without Windows already pre-installed. Microsoft know that average people don't know how to change that, and that they often sticj with what is pre-installed until it screws up badly enough that they go buy a new PC with the same flaws. They try to ensure that the customer never thinks there is any choice, that all PC's need Windows, when many other alternatives exist. They exploit people's ignorance.
A key part of laws allowing this is the BSA / MS line that "if PCs are sold without Windows already on it, people would install stolen copies of Windows on it". This assumes they are the peoples choice, rather than the default that people can't avoid. The idea is flawed.
People who are so desperate to use a version of Windows without paying for it, and have the skills to install an operating system (it's not hard but it does involve a little more technical knowledge than the average user possesses) will do so regardless of what OS comes pre-installed when they buy their PC. If all they could buy was Ubuntu and they couldn't live without their Photoshop etc they would wipe Ubuntu and put Windows on. If all they could buy was Vista and they wanted a more stable Windows they'd wipe it and install XP.
Microsoft use these lobbying proxies to build pressure, compile favorable studies etc all pushing lawmakers to enshrine their practices, and protect against actually having to compete for customers. Using the emotional linkage to stuff most of us accept is wrong like terrorism, drug smuggling, arms smuggling, people smuggling, counterfeit gangs, prostitution etc they seek to blind us with emotional reactions rather than see the real picture going on.
The whole proprietary model with hype making products the accepted product leader leads directly to illegal copies of software being sought after and installed by people who either can't afford the official prices, or refuse to see them as value for money for what they're getting. When companies "sell" software that's actually not a sale, it's a license to run a copy of that software under strict instructions, it's a deception right from the start. Microsoft have never "sold" a single piece of software in their entire history, yet they still claim to be the best selling OS and Office suite. Again this is exploiting people's ignorance.
Remember the BSA's audience is lawmakers and Microsoft's corporate partners, not end users.
This type of look back is great for one thing. It outs the shills. All of the glowing reviews around this pre-release stage for Vista were done by MS shills and partners who all sought to convince people to go buy-buy-buy. People's real experiences started to get in the way after it was released and the balance changed. Then MS's perception management had to start earning their money by trying to shout louder than real users and of course mod bombing sites like /. and digg to ensure reality never gets much attention. The sites who did glowing reviews had to gradually shift their initial praise in the face of losing credibility with their readers.
./ are gonna mod this down as flamebait, they're only doing their jobs after all but the evidence is there for all to see. The interwebs is good at archiving evidence. Watching how those sites handle Windows 7 now, and comparing that to the user perception of Windows 7 will be another indicator.
Switch forward to the same point in the Windows 7 pre-release, and it's history repeating itself, with all the same sites doing glowing reviews of Windows 7. The agenda is the same, they just hope you won't notice it. If MS are to be believed, Windows 7 is an awesome release with a lot of improvements. In that case the paid shills will (for once) be reporting something close to the experiences real people will have. If however Windows 7 is what many suspect it is, the Mojave Experiment in a box, then they will have exposed themselves as MS shills once again.
The Mojave Experiment for those who don't know was an advertising ploy by MS to try and reverse peoples perceptions about Vista. They told people who had a negative opinion about Vista that they were getting a chance to play with the new OS from Microsoft called Mojave, and that Microsoft wanted feedback to make it better. They secretly filmed people playing with an OS for a short time, then afterwards asked them what they though of it, only to reveal it was actually Vista and capture their "wow" responses on film. Like all MS ploys it's based on deception.
1 - They deceived people that it wasn't Vista when it was.
2 - They tweaked the (no doubt REAL high spec) PCs to ensure all the hardware worked perfect, with all the UAC warnings etc already pre-configured not to give any hassle.
3 - They have plenty of MS employees floating around to ensure the users only play with the parts they are intended to play with, leading their actions.
4 - They only allow people a short time with a pre-configured PC so the likelyhood of any normal "Windows reality" events like a new infection alert happening in that time frame are almost zero.
I wouldn't be surprised if the experiment used an intranet and blocked the internet to make double sure.
5 - They gloat about the ability to deceive people. It was designed as an advert.
Mojave did teach them a couple of things, the result is Windows 7.
1 - Vista is skinable.
2 - People are gullible enough to believe slick deceptive sales staff feeding them a heap of BS.
These people are shameless. They will say whatever they feel they need to to get their pay cheque from Microsoft. They will also never admit to being paid to praise Windows. The label of "independent" carries more weight in the readers eyes. These reviews put the spotlight on who has sold out, and consequently should receive a backlash in terms of readership, sponsorship, partnership etc
They also serve as a fortune cookie, as you can bet these same sites will already be gushing over Windows 8 in draft documents, no doubt without ever having seen or heard anything about MS's next vaporware OS.
Obviously the MS astroturf army on
Remember that MS try the same tricks with EVERY new version of Windows. Up until Vista, people's perceptions haven't been so at odds with the marketing image. Yes ME was very bad, but the size and affordibility of a PC with an internet connection has changed dramatically since then. The world ME was released
An OS is needed to run a PC. Windows is not. There are plenty of OSs including Windows. The car analogy only works in this case if you say we force retailers to sell cars with a choice of engine makers, or a choice of wheel makers. In the case of cars, they are designed to only work with their own wheels and engines so it wouldn't work. PC's work with any OS, it's only software after all.
You can buy a PC without Windows, plug it in and it's all ready to use. That is of course if an alternate OS like Linux has been installed instead of Windows. It's about giving consumers the choice, which is something MS are terrified of.
What would you expect the MS official line to say? They need people to be suckered into paying for 3rd rate software, not getting it free of charge, so they use the same old lines about it containing malware, supporting terrorism etc. Like any upstanding corporate crooks, they will pull figures from thin air to support their agenda and exagerate whenever possible. Their role is to pressure governments into giving their backers even more legally backed powers to shaft consumers and will use whatever sob stories (fact or fiction) to get that. When you see a story from BSA you may as well read that as a story direct from MS themselves.
Yep, like the Indian workers who are given training in entertainment shows and sports references to fool the caller they didn't just dial half way round the world.
"Hello my name is Hank"
I'm guessing it'll force the non-English native writers to be better at pretending, and force the US based writers to add more mistooks in to try and make people think they're not in the US, so the laws don't apply to them.
Gotta love these honest corps huh? Anytime a law comes in that forces them be be honest they'll seek a way round it to continue shafting people.
That would be the subsidized trialware model. If you have plenty of companies paying to have their 30 day trial shit installed on every box, it offsets the cost of Windows, giving the illusion that Windows is free when it's not. Retailers should be forced to provide a Windows refund form with every sale of a new PC, since they refuse to offer the customer the choice of actually buying it without Windows. They should also be forced to list it as a separate item in the pricing, as it's not a requirement to run the PC.....of course doing that would let the whole trialware racket out of the bag too.
Exactly, I'd never trust a retailer or product that only has positive reviews.
"The first rule about the backlash from last time, is that you don't talk about the backlash from last time. Seriously, if never happened. Any employees caught even hinting that there was a backlash will be punished severely."
/sarcasm.
Anonymous memo from inside Apple HQ.
On a more serious side, maybe they decided that the reason it went wrong before was that they weren't sneaky enough, not that people took exception to the act. Remember Apple still own that expensive shiny object, not you. That has to factor into the mindset of deciding whether or not the owner of the unit can make those decisions, or whether it should be left to a mere user to know what's good for them.
Are you breaking the terms & conditions of the party if you don't cripple Ubuntu and OSX to ensure Windows 7 is the clear winner in every case? The last thing Microsoft would want after giving you a free randomly generated number on a sticker is their software actually getting a fair comparison. They don't pay a fortune on astroturfers for nothing you know.
You've forgotten to take into account that the MS board are living in the 90's. They missed the news the rest of us saw about IT evolving beyond them. They still believe they are the top dog who can do whatever they want and people will swallow it.
For a second I read that as "bring it on Yahoo" meaning for Yahoo to now match it. I keep forgetting about MS-Search-Rebranded (version whatever it is now).
This part could also describe MS's very own "Get The Facts" site.
'used malvertisements to distribute malicious software or present deceptive websites that peddled scareware to unsuspecting Internet users.'
Their site does not distribute MS software, but it is nothing but lies and deception aimed at pulling the wool over unsuspecting internet users by scaring them into using Windows which leave them and their private more prone to every piece of malware going today, and the millions created from today onwards.
Thank you, I rest my case.
Market share done by sales in the US alone is inaccurate, not to mention being done by companies to favor their customers. If you extend that count outside the US, then Apple hardly gets a mention in many countries because people simply can't afford them. They do have a presence in the developed nations where some people can afford them however.
Even if you take a ratio of hits to a website it's not accurate as some websites will appeal more to some users than others. If you take the count of downloads of a linux distro to equal one sale that's also inaccurate as the same disc can be used as a live CD only, or installed on several PCs. If you count by IP address it can also be inaccurate as many PCs are behind routers, so one IP address may account for 100's or 1,000's of PCs behind it. One download = One sale could be a decent guide on the theory that each use will average itself out to a one-to-one. Now all we need is to have each distro count every download, which many don't (or can't) from every source.
In short I don't buy the BS put out by partners of MS or Apple about market share. I reckon both Apple and Linux are pretty close in numbers. I'm not going to explain mono culture for a third time just because you didn't understand it.
This is not about being able to install apps, or setting a Mac up to do things. It's about someone with malicious coding intent knowing that by examining ONE Mac and writing their app to exploit a file that came with it, be it a library file, a bug in a config file, or a tweak to something like Safari. They can rely on EVERY Mac having those files installed, configured with the same exploit. Even if you install and use Firefox, do you remove Safari? What about iTunes? Even assuming you do that with the applications, the culture still exists for the stuff under the surface that you can't remove.
By comparison, if someone finds an exploit in Gnome in Ubuntu, for the short time that the window is open, it may only affect Gnome, but in other distros. It may not affect Fedora because of the way Fedora package Gnome. People who don't use Gnome at all won't be affected at all. If you find an exploit in Firefox on Fedora, it may affect every Fiefox, it may not for the same reasons, the distros package their own, often with their modifications. Those who don't like Firefox don't have it installed and are not affected.
Updates are going on all the time from both the distribution end and the upstream end which means that there's every chance someone else will spot the exploit you have, and patch it before you can get your malware written and deployed. Linux is a hugely diverse setup, which makes it a small moving target. You're not going to waste your time trying to hit that, specially when it all the development happens in the open.
Actually no, they're not. Every Mac has a set list of apps, with a set list of libraries etc. It's a mono culture. Not to mention the fact that Apple are insane about secrecy, so Mac users often don't know if there's a vulnerability even reported to Apple, let alone if Apple are doing anything about it, or when it's due if they are. Notice the common theme of "being subservient to Apple's whims". With Linux anyone can submit the fix, which will then be adopted as needed by all the different distros, and within a couple of days at most it's fixed. Also the fact that Linux is so varied, often an exploit or vulnerability found on one distro may not affect another, or not affect a different DE or WM.
Let's assume the Mac share is around the same as Linux, both close to 10% which I think ain't too far off. An attacker can plan an attack on something they're guaranteed exists because it comes out the factory that way on every model, identical, with a slow acting vendor so the windows stays open for a while.....or they can plan an attack on a fast moving target that may only affect 30% of machines, and the window of opportunity will be gone within a day of it being noticed.
Both Mac and Linux users tend not to run any protection software like Windows users NEED just to have their system stay alive till lunchtime, so any infection if successful will likely go unnoticed. Both Mac and Linux users often feel their systems are immune. In the case of Mac users, the people who can afford Macs have money (or at least HAD money before they bought their Mac) so combined with a blind spot for self protection they should be a ripe juicy target. Yet, apart from the odd story like this one which is self inflicted by Apple, it's still rare.
OSX is UNIX, which is a HUGE advantage over Windows, but the closed Apple mono culture prevents it from being used to it's fullest.
You can hardly blame people for not allowing automatic updates, given how MS abuse them. Critical updates SHOULD be about the security of the OS, it should be an essential patch to fix some exploit. That's all. Yet MS decided that it was "critical" for Windows users to be able to tell if their copy was legit with the WGA. Even the word "advantage" being used in the title is wrong. It's a critical ADVANTAGE for MS's revenue stream to be able to tell that, end users (with the exception of corporate setups who could be audited) don't care.
Another news story about a known exploit that has been updated in Vista but it won't be updated in XP? Is that the users fault too? I guess the blame lies with the user in not spending a lot of money to buy a sticker with a new number on it for a new OS they don't want (if they did want it, they'd have upgraded already). Which is a perfect example of why the proprietary model will fail. It's based around the needs of the companies profits rather than the end users needs.
Microsoft did try the option of restricting updates to only WGA approved licensed copies, but were slammed for contributing (even more than they already do) to the chaos on the internet. They had to backtrack and allow unlicensed copies to receive critical updates, while holding back the optional ones like new features, or new versions of apps like IE and WMP for WGA approved PCs.
But as we all know, MS are never responsible for their own mess, it's always looking for others to blame.
I agree with you, we do need to put it in perspective.
ONE small Linux botnet found recently because of badly configured systems? It's a tiny drop in the ocean. Is that in any way close to sharing blame with Windows for their 1,000's of LARGE botnets being actively used? Microsoft like to spread FUD about Windows market share being almost total, with Linux and OSX hardly getting a mention. They're right, but it seems they're talking about the botnet scourge ALL PC users have to suffer, regardless of our choice of OS. Microsoft have the malware and botnet market all but sewn up, thankfully it's a market no other OS wants. Given how Linux and OSX are built it's something they'll never grow into either, regardless of how popular they get.
Indeed, the recent story about ONE Linux botnet, and another recent story about ONE Mac botnet is equal to the 100's if not 1,000's of ACTIVE Windows botnets, past, present and future. As much as Microsoft enjoy a good monopoly when it's their name on the door, this is one they earned without corruption by making terrible software.
EVERY country needs to be doing this, and not making it voluntary either. Any problem on the internet affects everyone connected to it. Cutting off PCs in one country has limited effect in isolation. Considering botnets are an exclusive Windows problem, Microsoft should be forced to pay for the scheme too. It's their mess after all.
I'm curious about how MS will respond to this if it comes into being. On one hand they'll lose a large number of users, after all, does anyone outside the MS camp really believe that it's not gonna be 100% infected Windows PC's that will be affected? What will MS do?
Will they offer discounted or free vouchers for repairs, upgrades etc? How many of these machines will be unlicensed? Will they pay to fix unlicensed copies of Windows if the owners either have no money to spend on a sticker with a number on it? In the current economic climate you can't blame them. Is a subsidy to clean the PC worth the ISP's time and hassle knowing it'll be infected again by the end of the week at the latest, and they'll have to repeat the same warning and threat of disconnection all over again. Will they provide paid anti-malware software? Who pays for all of this? Will they provide training for Windows users to at least give them a chance of having a few months online without a letter?
This would reflect badly on MS in any free press, even having to be the only ones to offer fixes is embarrassing enough. Given that MS control the mainstream media it'll go unnoticed as far as PR is concerned, but it's yet one more thing eating into their profits at a time where they're struggling.
The alternative is to lose a large number either to Linux, or off the internet altogether. Anyone who's had the internet for a while knows what it's like when it goes down for a few hours, will those people really decide the internet is not worth it?
I'm guessing the great philanthropists and all round nice people at MS are busy lobbying at every level to stop this from happening or at least water it down (notice the ISPs are being "asked" not "told"). They need to keep market share by any means necessary, ideally without spending a cent on it. The rest of the world can suffer as long as MS's interests are not hurt.
Given that Windows has all the security of a paper tank in a thunderstorm this will be hilarious to see the workload the scheme entails, and over time the number of Windows PCs in Australia still connected because they're NOT infected. They will drop like flies. Give it a few years and it'll be a Windows free zone.
Everyones user experience if different in any product or service. The higher the price, the better people expect the user experience to be. If theirs matches their expectations, they perceive it as value for money. In many products that means a good set of defaults, and a workflow you're happy with. The downside is often more expensive parts or labor when things do need tended to, on a closed system which protects the manufacturers revenue stream over your choices to do things on something you bought....ie you paid money for an ownership (supposedly) changed hands. It's a trade off that some are happy with, while others are not. Often it'll be a case by case basis too.
For me Apple gadgets (apart from being closed platforms with crazy people in charge of approving apps) are now EVERYWHERE. They've become the gadget of choice for everyone, there's no "exclusivity" left with them. Apple (like other luxury brands) have a LOT of value in the fact that only a small percentage of people can buy them, you pay the extra to attach yourself to that social clique. When you see everyone from grannies, to chavs, kids to business-people all with iPods, do you want to be thought of as just another sheep going with the crowd and unable to choose anything other than what the media tell you is the "hot" thing today? Think what happened to the Burbury brand when it became the brand of choice for hooligans.
When you buy a gadget nobody knows why you've chosen that one, just like politicians don't know which issues made you vote for them, or not vote for them. They don't know if you are tech literate and have chosen the iPod because it suits your needs better than anything else. All that counts in the vote, or the lil white earbuds. How many people are desperate to fit in and will buy the "hot" gadgets without really understanding what they're buying and how it compares to the competition? In short, there's no "look at my cool new gadget" with Apple anymore, where a non-Apple device can still do that, not to mention it's often cheaper for better spec......oh and not controlled by Apple's insane policies over what you can or can't do with YOUR device.
So, brand snobbery? Maybe, I wouldn't be seen dead with an Apple gadget for several reasons, only one of which is that I don't want to be wrongly perceived as a sheep. We all have choices, so each to their own.
"Calling people with certain beliefs gullible/funny/stupid is just cruel."
In some cases that could be true, in others, like the Scientology example, it also happens to be true. I have no problem calling a spade a spade, when if the spades are busy trying to convince people they're shovels, and want all references to spades silenced.
Exactly, a netbook is not a cheap laptop, it was never intended to be. If you buy one expecting it to be, you're gonna be disappointed. The question for me comes down to how you came by that conclusion. Did you decide for yourself or did the sales staff decide to sell you the cheapest "PC" they had even though they knew it wasn't suitable just to make the sale? Many people falling prey to these sales people and stores will be unhappy with their purchases. This is a large part of the reason why netbooks are returned. They are being mis-sold.
If you try hard enough you can convince yourself that anything is a good thing and should be protected, look at Scientology for example. It's pathetic and funny, but there's always some gullible people ready to exclaim it. There's one thing to be a fan, to accept it's pro's and con's and love it anyway, to want to see it get better. It takes an extra step to be blind to the short comings and defend stuff that's NOT in their interests using mental gymnastics. What makes it even funnier is Apple's "luxury" price tags, these people are not only defending stuff that's not in their interests, but they're paying a fortune for the privilege. As they say, "a fool and his money are easily parted".