That depends on how you define "multi user". If you mean it can have multiple user accounts but only one can be logged on at any one time on the same box then it is. This is what Microsoft define as "multi user". In the non-Windows world "multi user" means that multiple users can be logged on at the same time; Windows has never been able to do this. This is vintage Microsoft problem solving at work; just redefine the terms rather than fixing the real problem.
Part of the problem Microsoft have in taking a real multi-user approach (in addition to Windows not being designed for it) is that they have different licensing models and prices for seats on some Windows products. Hence desktop Windows is a one seat / one logged on account deal.
Since only one user can be logged on at any one time, that user must be able to install / uninstall software, which means Microsoft have their default user as an Administrator; which means all actions are run with admin rights....which includes malware. Third party developers are also lazy when they need rights for their apps to run; they figure that every Windows user is going to be running as an Administrator that they don't need to figure out if their app needs admin rights, so they just set it to need them. This means that even if you do try to modify your Windows box to something resembling a more secure *nix like model, every app will be fighting you on it, demanding admin rights for the simplest, most menial things. At some point you will get pissed off with the constant battle that you're gonna go back to running as admin all the time; which puts you back to square one.
UAC is an attempt to glue in a kinda *nix sudo function which is long overdue, but it's never going to work that well.
This is the reason why *nix boxes would never have the same malware problem if they had Windows market share. Most malware writers would definitely target the biggest market share, but how many pea shooters could damage a tank? There would no doubt be plenty of different approaches like infecting repos but the diversity and open source development model would keep that vector closed for the most part.
Windows was designed as a single user system with the user sitting at the box. As soon as you connect it to other boxes via a network it's dead. All of Microsoft's plans for Windows security are based around trying to get a level of multi-user protection into a system not designed for it. They are desperately trying to apply a band aid to a broken leg with solutions like UAC; some of the damage may be limited but it's not a great solution and will never be, no matter how much they work on it.
The only solution is to scrap Windows altogether and build a new multi-user OS from scratch.....or do what Apple did; take the BSD kernel, add a few bells and whistles with a fancy skin and pretend they invented it. The two areas they have a problem if they go that route, is that they are hemorrhaging money on the products they do have on the market since more and more people are deciding that they don't want what Microsoft are offering them, and that they have the world convinced that the Microsoft way is king, that any change is bad because it's confusing and means relearning.....which would be an issue if they changed Windows with another OS.
Companies only put work into a product if that somehow feeds results back into the profits. Like any company, they want to do as little for the most gain. Constantly tinkering with the security applications is much easier and cheaper than a complete rewrite. It also helps when you have a software sector which rely soley on your incompetence. The anti-malware companies wouldn't exist if you did your job right, they also have to compete with each other as to who can cover your ass the best; which also lets you cut back on spending money to really make it secure.
As the internet evolves, as people find new ways to use and abuse it, Windows gets more and more obsolete. The more FOSS improves, evolves and continues to offer users flexibility, freedom, security and stability, Windows gets more and more obsolete. It's only a matter of when, not if it becomes a minority player.
This was debunked a while back, they are being returned at around the same rate. The major reason for the Linux returns is the retailers specifically not telling people they are getting Linux netbooks, so they get something other than what they expect when they open the box. It's also largely down to the distros some netbooks come with and the support given by those retailers.
People who know they are getting Linux netbooks tend not to return them unless they are faulty. On the other hand, people who pay extra to get a cut down 8 yr old OS pre-loaded with shareware tend to be pleased because they at least know all their viruses will be compatible, but tend to be less than impressed with the fact that the netbook runs like a wheezy old chain smoking dog on acid.
Some people also have the wrong impression of what a netbook is, or what it's for. It's NOT a cheap replacement for a laptop or desktop PC, it's not meant to be. Regardless of OS, if they expect to be rendering videos etc on it they will be disappointed. Bad marketing is at fault here for selling the netbook as something other than it is. Retailers who just want the money without any regard to the customers need will sell them anything they can too.
Retailers are paid by Microsoft to shovel their shit onto customers plates, it tends to be the default option the customer sees because of this. If you get a Linux PC of any variety generally you have to ask for it, or specifically choose it; if that's the case then you will know the difference and benefits of your choice....and will be less likely to return it. If you don't specify an OS or don't know what an OS is, let alone why one is better than another; you're gonna be virus compatible by the time you get home with your new bot.
Imagine how much damage an infected Windows Mainframe could cause. Botnets are already causing havoc with desktops as bots. I wonder when a worldwide class action lawsuit against Microsoft for downtime damages to businesses caused by spam / malware prevention and recovery will take place.
With Zimbra being owned by Yahoo, and Microsoft's recent attempted ass-raping of Yahoo, when they eventually have their insiders on Yahoo's board sell to Microsoft at a vastly reduced price (due to the credit crunch of course); how long do you think Microsoft will allow a competitor to Exchange to continue? Zimbra looks great for now, but keep an eye on the Yahoo execs.
This is the default settings laid down by Microsoft for their end users, if they know they can change them, they have to figure out how and actually do it. This is Microsoft deciding that it's users are retarded.
So it needs to restart whatever was just updated, can't it restart the service as part of the update process? It's not exactly a new innovation, every other OS has been doing just that for years. Even if it can't, can't it respect that a user supposedly buys the PC with the intent of actually using it to do stuff and apply it at the next restart? Surely a single "would you like to reboot to apply update now or later" would suffice, without it deciding you're a retarded user and prompting you at every turn to reboot, and eventually removing the option of "later". Is it really that serious an update that it can't wait? If so, what does that say about the quality control department of Microsoft that they release such a fragile piece of software on paying customers? Does the latest WGA.exe to help fight against the nasty pirates really take priority over you actually working with your PC? Wait.....nah, don't answer that; we already know the answer.
Needy Window huh? They don't give you the choice of when to reboot after an update; is this classed as a needy window? Now that I think about it, why does an OS need to reboot after every installation / removal of an application or update? It's 2009 FFS, Windows is the ONLY OS still engineered with the 1995 "your downtime is not worth anything to us, as long as you're buying our shit" mindset. This would also explain the complete lack of security in Windows too.
"This, I think, is the reason why OSS is generally of poor quality (generally speaking) compared to closed source competition."
OSS is generally written by users for users, where closed source is generally written by companies for customers. This is a major differntiator.
Look at Yahoo's official messenger client for example. To entice more people, they've had to pack in more and more features the user can't switch off, building in shit with partners of theirs, which include flashing adverts in the buddy list and an app which seems to be a few 100k until you double click and install.....and it turns out to be 30+mb of shit it has to download. Look at all the extra crap you didn't ask for like toolbars it insists on installing. Why do they do this? They need to make money from you, which means pushing all this shit on you, which not only eats your bandwidth, but shoves an advertising slot on your desktop and tracks your browsing use if you use the toolbar. Then we have the extra PC resources used to keep this running.......and all you wanted was a fucking PM client. This is ONLY for the Yahoo network, add similar versions for MSN etc and you soon have several apps doing the same thing because they can't afford to work together.
I used to use Yahoo's official client when I had to use Windows, but I abandoned them after 7.0 because they crossed the bloated line for me. I went back to 6.0 or 5.9 (it's been a while I can't remember exactly) as it had everything I wanted, but of course Yahoo don't want people using the older clients without their partners bloatware included, so pretty soon everyone you try to talk to it gives error messages telling you to upgrade, and pointing you at the latest bloatware 8.0.
Compare that to a PM client made by users for users, like Pidgin or Kopete. Not only do they have no need to promote one network over any other, they have no need for bloating the app up to entice you to download and use it. Developers are users too, they add the basics of what they need; which is essentially PM with smileys. They don't need to keep adding stuff that prevents others from communicating with them, they WANT to give users choice in client and network.
Looking beyond the PM client example, when a new feature is developed, the OSS viewpoint is that as long as it's stable enough it goes into the app when it's ready, even if it's a plugin. The closed source viewpoint is that it may be held back until the next (paid) version if the marketing suits think it'd look good on the sales pitch; ie a reason to pay more money to upgrade. If a bug is a minor irritant but not fatal, the promise of that bug being fixed can also be used to get people to give more money, where OSS will fix it if they know about it and have people who have the free time to fix it.
For me, one of the killer benefits of OSS software in general is that they don't use proprietary file formats by default; they know they have to work to keep you using their apps, most of their developers do so because they love the app and want to make it better. Closed source apps tend to be the opposite; they lock your data in with their own file formats since they know they have to sell you a new version down the line and can't afford to give you an easy out to a competitor; this in turn allows them to treat you like shit with the price and quality of their software and support. Not to mention the fact that they can effectively force you to spend money upgrading even if you're getting no ROI.
While someone is willing to work on an OSS app it lives on. When the company who own the closed source app abandon it, it's dead; just as Microsoft are desperate to do with XP, to force you to buy their latest OS even if you don't need or want it. You as the customer have no say in a closed source app.
While some OSS apps are not very good, many are much better than their closed source equivalents. Some high end apps still have a long way to go for the professional user, but that gap narrows each day.
Seriously though, since we're wondering about numbers; do we have an estimated ratio on the lobbyists / lawyers / shills in comparison to coders? Judging by the end results, questions need answered. Either before or after the layoffs; although the former would be a safe bet on which category will keep their jobs longer.
People are under the illusion that THEY are Microsoft's customers; they're not and never have been. Other corporations (and governments) are their customers, not you. Any DRM shit which gives them control is a welcome addition, specially if the end user can't disable it. Both Windows and OSX are built by corporations for corporations to be used by consumers. As an end user of these platforms your job is as a consumer, to buy the latest versions of their software regardless of whether you're getting any new benefits.
The term PC is used to help sell the illusion. PC stands for "personal computer". With both Windows and OSX, you don't own the OS, Microsoft and Apple license you the use of it for a fee, and restrict what you can and can't do with it. The idea is that you can customize it to your needs; if you need to edit photo's you install a photo editing application etc. Every PC can do that, regardless of OS (Windows / OSX / *nix) but that's just the start. Both Microsoft and Apple make sure they limit how much you can customize your desktop because they need their OS to be recognizable at a glance. This is a perfect example of corporate agenda overriding your ability to use your "personal computer" in a way that's personalized to your needs. It re-enforces the idea that your PC does not belong to you....it belongs to Microsoft or Apple.
Consumers have no power to influence either Microsoft or Apple, all feedback or criticism is going to be drowned out by their partners in the media.....their REAL customers. Your choice is to vote with your wallet; if you want a PC that actually fit's the definition of "personal computer" don't buy Windows or OSX. If you can't get one without Windows pre-installed, buy it and claim the Windows tax back. If you want to buy an Apple product, you accept the digital straitjacket built into it's DNA as a part of the "cool" package. If you're in a position of influence inside a company / school / local government do your bit to help people by trying to switch them away from Microsoft products.
It does seem that Microsoft, and to a lesser degree Apple, seem to have abandoned their end users. They are not worthy of your loyalty if they insist on shafting you more and more with each release. They see you as nothing more than a barrier to your wallet.
I stumbled across a site the other day which is a great pointer for those who need a smack with the common sense stick:
http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/
A simple response to start them thinking, is that since Microsoft closely guard ALL their code, to ALL their applications, their code can't possibly be penetrated, since the logic they're trying to portray is secrecy and source of code. How then do they explain ANY malware? Let alone the floods of it which increases by the day. The malware writers MUST have seen the code right or had to reverse engineer it? If malware writers have seen the code, surely OSS code would be an easier hit, since they don't have to reverse engineer it first to find exploits.
Someone needs to get Microsoft's official answers to some hard questions under penalty of perjury.
What % of botnets are mostly infected Windows boxes?
Of those botnets, what's the average estimated % of infected Windows boxes?
Which other OS's have been found as zombies on botnets and what percentages are they?
How much ($) damage and disruption worldwide have botnets estimated to have caused?
How much ($) per seat does the average business lose in downtime (and engineer time to fix) when their employee's workstation has to be rebooted for a trivial update or virus infection / cleansing?
We know botnets are a Windows problem, they won't want to go on the record about it though. As Bill Gate's once said "our products just aren't designed for security".
The point about the user taking the effort to find out which application they are using is not helped by Gnome's naming policy. I use (and love) GEdit, yet I have no "GEdit" on my menu, nor on my alternate click. What I do have is "Text Editor" which by some coincidence, IS GEdit; I rest my case.
The question is about (lack of) choice, or (lack of) control. This was done without asking the user. To be fair, they always have the owners consent as they own the copy of Windows you license to use but that's not the point. Some people choose not to have certain formats on principles of free software such as Flash player, which they accept limits their use of some sites; this is a price they are willing to pay as it's their choice.....Flash is not included in a Microsoft update, any distro the user chooses which has Flash, they can easily remove it. Despite Microsoft shills trumpeting the acceptance of Silverlight, nobody wants it, yet no doubt Microsoft would happily install that on people's Firefox installs without asking too to increase the user base, which in turn fakes popularity. If people are stupid enough to code.NET sites, most likely they're on a diet of M$ cool aid anyway, which means they're still convinced IE is the best of the browsers. Surfers using Firefox can easily add the extension on manually.....you know....like they do with EVERY other add on they need. If Microsoft had been a reputable company, they'd have put the add on in the Mozilla add ons site like everyone else's.
Microsoft have long thought of the end user as someone to be used and abused for profit, this is yet another sterling example of their arrogance. They let IE stagnate because they had no serious competition, which meant all the complaints of pop ups were ignored. Only after they started to notice a trend of users switching did they decide to dust off the IE code and see how they could compete. Given that they treat their OWN customers with such contempt, do you really think they're gonna give a shit about pissing on those who have abandoned their IE in favor of a proper browser? They already do their level best to make sure govt's have "IE & Windows only" websites to block the competition, the more they can get.NET installed and used, the more they can freeze out the competition. Microsoft never have, and never will like competition, mainly because they can't compete like for like on products.
With all the mistakes and arrogance, 2009 is the year Microsoft's empire starts to collapse. It won't be quick, and it'll also take down plenty of companies and shills who have tied their credibility and income to Microsoft. The end has begun.......and it's all self inflicted; they had the world in their hands and blew it in spectacular style.
That's what I was thinking, it's the first real world application for Surface, although I wouldn't trust any M$ software to hold up in a mission critical application. The last thing you'd want in a riot control scenario is your planning desk to suddenly tell you it can't find foo.dll and blue screen on you.
That aside, wouldn't it be just like Microsoft to implement a new licensing model for this, like the schools. Schools (under some licensing conditions) had to buy a Windows license for every PC in the building, regardless of how many of those PC's were going to be running Windows. This could be exploited the same way, where the cost is worked out on the number of people working from that control room, with values on each rank....a per attendee fee. (Bought and paid for) Politicians get in free, assuming they continue to remember their duties of course.
On a funnier note, many areas are associated with their local sports teams and colors. Wouldn't other areas demand a screen of death in THEIR local colors? I mean, if blue is associated with your local rivals, it's like a slap in the face from them on match day if their colors suddenly wash over you in the control room. It's not good for the blood pressure when you want to be thinking calmly about rebooting and hoping the situation don't spiral out of control by the time the application comes back to life.
I notice one of the features listed is the ability to prevent third parties from tracking your web browsing habits, which would presumably mean "anyone other than the owner". Since Microsoft believe in retaining ownership of the software and licensing it to you, do they consider themselves a third party? Or is this just a convenient little "block the competition, while leaving a loophole for us"?
1 - Microsoft will have to agree to install Firefox by default in the EU to avoid even more fines. 2 - They will insist that IE is still installed too, as it's baked so deep into Windows that it'd require a hefty rewrite to remove, not to mention their spyware / update system demands Active X, which only they know how to implement. 3 - They will insist on installing it themselves, and install a modified version which will be buggy as hell, take up oodles of resources and crash like a plane which finds it's engines mysteriously vanish mid-flight. 4 - As part of the modified Firefox all crashes will point to microsoft.com "advice" about how IE is perfect and crash-free, and advise them to start using it. 5 - They'll also insist that IE is the default browser, even if a broken Firefox is there too. 6 - They'll disable all of the security features of their Firefox build, make some defaults unable to be changed, all to give people a bad impression of Firefox. 7 - They'll start the FUD campaign exposing the flaws (they added) against their magnificent IE. 8 - They'll insist that the Firefox pre-installed is the very same as everyone else's Firefox, so all the flaws are Mozilla's, not theirs. 9 - In a few years another lawsuit will reveal this collusion, and history will start to repeat again......as it always does with Microsoft.
To the M$ shills astroturfung at/.
Feel free to mark this as flamebait, many companies make mistakes and learn from them. Many companies have bad leadership and make big mistakes; in most cases the company starts to change after being punished and the CEO involved is removed. Microsoft are 100% unrepentant in everything they do, they see nothing wrong in what they do, the only thing they see as "wrong" is people standing up to them and holding them to account. They deserve NO benefit of the doubt.
Is he going to thank Microsoft for their invaluable assistance in his career and sentencing award? After all, without Microsoft's dodgy software he wouldn't be able to have done what he did. Maybe he could just throw a chair at the judge in a symbolic gesture of thanks to Steve Ballmer.
Or does this paint a picture of lots of M$ employees on the SS Microsoft desperately using a chain of buckets to scoop water overboard as the ship sinks, complete with a chair shaped hole in the cabin window and an enraged bald man throwing a hissyfit inside?
Microsoft don't want to have to release documentation, that would allow others to make their software more compatible with Microsoft formats, which weakens the vendor lock in obsession they have. They are only reluctantly releasing half arsed documentation to try and avoid even more fines, they don't want those documents to actually be of any use. They want people to be trawling through books of crap to get to the details. They want to casually "forget" some key elements. The last thing they need is people actually forcing Microsoft to fix the documentation so they are useful, it defeats the original plan. Look at the crap they submited for OfficeOpenXML filed under the usual "don't worry if it's a bit messy, we promise to clean it up AFTER you make it a standard." tag.
It was like the truck of Iraqi WMD documentation offered at the last minute to stave off a pre-destined invasion.....mostly fluff and bullshit aimed as a PR move (look, we're the good guys, we're complying, it's the nasty regulators who are trying to bully us).
Microsoft seem hell bent on focussing all their efforts on lobbyists and lawyers than actually making their products something people WANT to buy. I believe the main reason for all the shit with the formats spec changing is to keep one step ahead of proper interoperability. As the OSS peeps reverse engineer the latest.doc to close to 100% (for most users) it provides a loophole in Microsoft's vendor lock in strategy, so the solution is to fuck with the format, make sure it's not documented and pass the update to their own office suite. If it wasn't for the constant moving of the goalposts, they no doubt could document and provide a decent standard (even if it is patent encumbered and proprietary) which would let them easily submit the documentation they are struggling with now.
Remember this is stuff they are doing ONLY under orders from a judge with threats of fines for non-compliance. This is the proverbial kid being dragged down to someone's house by their parents and being forced to apologise, when they clearly think they've done nothing wrong.
Names are important, all (reputable) marketing people will tell you that. Companies spend a fortune trying to find just the right name and slogan which will associate the customers mind to what they want. Microsoft have never included the version number in the name before. How many people knew this was the 7th incarnation of everyone's favourite virus compatible platform? I've even seen debate on whether it's the 8th or not.
The point is that 2007 / 2008 have been the years of Vista. Is the "7" going to associate people with "Windows in 2007"? It may not get it's final release until late 2009, early 2010. Are people going the be thinking it's a 2007 product which is late? Vista was 5 or so years late so they do have form. Even Vista's final release was as buggy as a beta. Wouldn't it not be a better idea to give it name?
I say this as a Linux user who enjoys a good laugh at every Microsoft own goal.
After working to hype it so much, they better make sure they come through with the goods otherwise it may just backfire on them. The richest corporation on the planet with TWO failed releases of their flagship product one after the other. Vista already hurt them, they NEED Win7 to be a hit; specially to improve perceptions. Mojave didn't work, maybe another fresh skin for Vista and another new name will do the trick this time, as long as they hold it back long enough for people to believe it's actually a new product.
But not to worry, we all know how great Microsoft's final releases are, right?
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on how you define "multi user". If you mean it can have multiple user accounts but only one can be logged on at any one time on the same box then it is. This is what Microsoft define as "multi user". In the non-Windows world "multi user" means that multiple users can be logged on at the same time; Windows has never been able to do this. This is vintage Microsoft problem solving at work; just redefine the terms rather than fixing the real problem.
Part of the problem Microsoft have in taking a real multi-user approach (in addition to Windows not being designed for it) is that they have different licensing models and prices for seats on some Windows products. Hence desktop Windows is a one seat / one logged on account deal.
Since only one user can be logged on at any one time, that user must be able to install / uninstall software, which means Microsoft have their default user as an Administrator; which means all actions are run with admin rights....which includes malware. Third party developers are also lazy when they need rights for their apps to run; they figure that every Windows user is going to be running as an Administrator that they don't need to figure out if their app needs admin rights, so they just set it to need them. This means that even if you do try to modify your Windows box to something resembling a more secure *nix like model, every app will be fighting you on it, demanding admin rights for the simplest, most menial things. At some point you will get pissed off with the constant battle that you're gonna go back to running as admin all the time; which puts you back to square one.
UAC is an attempt to glue in a kinda *nix sudo function which is long overdue, but it's never going to work that well.
This is the reason why *nix boxes would never have the same malware problem if they had Windows market share. Most malware writers would definitely target the biggest market share, but how many pea shooters could damage a tank? There would no doubt be plenty of different approaches like infecting repos but the diversity and open source development model would keep that vector closed for the most part.
Windows was designed as a single user system with the user sitting at the box. As soon as you connect it to other boxes via a network it's dead. All of Microsoft's plans for Windows security are based around trying to get a level of multi-user protection into a system not designed for it. They are desperately trying to apply a band aid to a broken leg with solutions like UAC; some of the damage may be limited but it's not a great solution and will never be, no matter how much they work on it.
The only solution is to scrap Windows altogether and build a new multi-user OS from scratch.....or do what Apple did; take the BSD kernel, add a few bells and whistles with a fancy skin and pretend they invented it. The two areas they have a problem if they go that route, is that they are hemorrhaging money on the products they do have on the market since more and more people are deciding that they don't want what Microsoft are offering them, and that they have the world convinced that the Microsoft way is king, that any change is bad because it's confusing and means relearning.....which would be an issue if they changed Windows with another OS.
Companies only put work into a product if that somehow feeds results back into the profits. Like any company, they want to do as little for the most gain. Constantly tinkering with the security applications is much easier and cheaper than a complete rewrite. It also helps when you have a software sector which rely soley on your incompetence. The anti-malware companies wouldn't exist if you did your job right, they also have to compete with each other as to who can cover your ass the best; which also lets you cut back on spending money to really make it secure.
As the internet evolves, as people find new ways to use and abuse it, Windows gets more and more obsolete. The more FOSS improves, evolves and continues to offer users flexibility, freedom, security and stability, Windows gets more and more obsolete. It's only a matter of when, not if it becomes a minority player.
This was debunked a while back, they are being returned at around the same rate. The major reason for the Linux returns is the retailers specifically not telling people they are getting Linux netbooks, so they get something other than what they expect when they open the box. It's also largely down to the distros some netbooks come with and the support given by those retailers.
People who know they are getting Linux netbooks tend not to return them unless they are faulty. On the other hand, people who pay extra to get a cut down 8 yr old OS pre-loaded with shareware tend to be pleased because they at least know all their viruses will be compatible, but tend to be less than impressed with the fact that the netbook runs like a wheezy old chain smoking dog on acid.
Some people also have the wrong impression of what a netbook is, or what it's for. It's NOT a cheap replacement for a laptop or desktop PC, it's not meant to be. Regardless of OS, if they expect to be rendering videos etc on it they will be disappointed. Bad marketing is at fault here for selling the netbook as something other than it is. Retailers who just want the money without any regard to the customers need will sell them anything they can too.
Retailers are paid by Microsoft to shovel their shit onto customers plates, it tends to be the default option the customer sees because of this. If you get a Linux PC of any variety generally you have to ask for it, or specifically choose it; if that's the case then you will know the difference and benefits of your choice....and will be less likely to return it. If you don't specify an OS or don't know what an OS is, let alone why one is better than another; you're gonna be virus compatible by the time you get home with your new bot.
Imagine how much damage an infected Windows Mainframe could cause. Botnets are already causing havoc with desktops as bots. I wonder when a worldwide class action lawsuit against Microsoft for downtime damages to businesses caused by spam / malware prevention and recovery will take place.
With Zimbra being owned by Yahoo, and Microsoft's recent attempted ass-raping of Yahoo, when they eventually have their insiders on Yahoo's board sell to Microsoft at a vastly reduced price (due to the credit crunch of course); how long do you think Microsoft will allow a competitor to Exchange to continue? Zimbra looks great for now, but keep an eye on the Yahoo execs.
This is the default settings laid down by Microsoft for their end users, if they know they can change them, they have to figure out how and actually do it. This is Microsoft deciding that it's users are retarded.
So it needs to restart whatever was just updated, can't it restart the service as part of the update process? It's not exactly a new innovation, every other OS has been doing just that for years. Even if it can't, can't it respect that a user supposedly buys the PC with the intent of actually using it to do stuff and apply it at the next restart? Surely a single "would you like to reboot to apply update now or later" would suffice, without it deciding you're a retarded user and prompting you at every turn to reboot, and eventually removing the option of "later". Is it really that serious an update that it can't wait? If so, what does that say about the quality control department of Microsoft that they release such a fragile piece of software on paying customers? Does the latest WGA .exe to help fight against the nasty pirates really take priority over you actually working with your PC? Wait.....nah, don't answer that; we already know the answer.
Needy Window huh? They don't give you the choice of when to reboot after an update; is this classed as a needy window? Now that I think about it, why does an OS need to reboot after every installation / removal of an application or update? It's 2009 FFS, Windows is the ONLY OS still engineered with the 1995 "your downtime is not worth anything to us, as long as you're buying our shit" mindset. This would also explain the complete lack of security in Windows too.
"This, I think, is the reason why OSS is generally of poor quality (generally speaking) compared to closed source competition."
OSS is generally written by users for users, where closed source is generally written by companies for customers. This is a major differntiator.
Look at Yahoo's official messenger client for example. To entice more people, they've had to pack in more and more features the user can't switch off, building in shit with partners of theirs, which include flashing adverts in the buddy list and an app which seems to be a few 100k until you double click and install.....and it turns out to be 30+mb of shit it has to download. Look at all the extra crap you didn't ask for like toolbars it insists on installing. Why do they do this? They need to make money from you, which means pushing all this shit on you, which not only eats your bandwidth, but shoves an advertising slot on your desktop and tracks your browsing use if you use the toolbar. Then we have the extra PC resources used to keep this running.......and all you wanted was a fucking PM client. This is ONLY for the Yahoo network, add similar versions for MSN etc and you soon have several apps doing the same thing because they can't afford to work together.
I used to use Yahoo's official client when I had to use Windows, but I abandoned them after 7.0 because they crossed the bloated line for me. I went back to 6.0 or 5.9 (it's been a while I can't remember exactly) as it had everything I wanted, but of course Yahoo don't want people using the older clients without their partners bloatware included, so pretty soon everyone you try to talk to it gives error messages telling you to upgrade, and pointing you at the latest bloatware 8.0.
Compare that to a PM client made by users for users, like Pidgin or Kopete. Not only do they have no need to promote one network over any other, they have no need for bloating the app up to entice you to download and use it. Developers are users too, they add the basics of what they need; which is essentially PM with smileys. They don't need to keep adding stuff that prevents others from communicating with them, they WANT to give users choice in client and network.
Looking beyond the PM client example, when a new feature is developed, the OSS viewpoint is that as long as it's stable enough it goes into the app when it's ready, even if it's a plugin. The closed source viewpoint is that it may be held back until the next (paid) version if the marketing suits think it'd look good on the sales pitch; ie a reason to pay more money to upgrade. If a bug is a minor irritant but not fatal, the promise of that bug being fixed can also be used to get people to give more money, where OSS will fix it if they know about it and have people who have the free time to fix it.
For me, one of the killer benefits of OSS software in general is that they don't use proprietary file formats by default; they know they have to work to keep you using their apps, most of their developers do so because they love the app and want to make it better. Closed source apps tend to be the opposite; they lock your data in with their own file formats since they know they have to sell you a new version down the line and can't afford to give you an easy out to a competitor; this in turn allows them to treat you like shit with the price and quality of their software and support. Not to mention the fact that they can effectively force you to spend money upgrading even if you're getting no ROI.
While someone is willing to work on an OSS app it lives on. When the company who own the closed source app abandon it, it's dead; just as Microsoft are desperate to do with XP, to force you to buy their latest OS even if you don't need or want it. You as the customer have no say in a closed source app.
While some OSS apps are not very good, many are much better than their closed source equivalents. Some high end apps still have a long way to go for the professional user, but that gap narrows each day.
Interesting final
Seriously though, since we're wondering about numbers; do we have an estimated ratio on the lobbyists / lawyers / shills in comparison to coders? Judging by the end results, questions need answered. Either before or after the layoffs; although the former would be a safe bet on which category will keep their jobs longer.
Of course they have more testers than coders, except Microsoft call their testers "customers".....or "shmucks".
People are under the illusion that THEY are Microsoft's customers; they're not and never have been. Other corporations (and governments) are their customers, not you. Any DRM shit which gives them control is a welcome addition, specially if the end user can't disable it. Both Windows and OSX are built by corporations for corporations to be used by consumers. As an end user of these platforms your job is as a consumer, to buy the latest versions of their software regardless of whether you're getting any new benefits.
The term PC is used to help sell the illusion. PC stands for "personal computer". With both Windows and OSX, you don't own the OS, Microsoft and Apple license you the use of it for a fee, and restrict what you can and can't do with it. The idea is that you can customize it to your needs; if you need to edit photo's you install a photo editing application etc. Every PC can do that, regardless of OS (Windows / OSX / *nix) but that's just the start. Both Microsoft and Apple make sure they limit how much you can customize your desktop because they need their OS to be recognizable at a glance. This is a perfect example of corporate agenda overriding your ability to use your "personal computer" in a way that's personalized to your needs. It re-enforces the idea that your PC does not belong to you....it belongs to Microsoft or Apple.
Consumers have no power to influence either Microsoft or Apple, all feedback or criticism is going to be drowned out by their partners in the media.....their REAL customers. Your choice is to vote with your wallet; if you want a PC that actually fit's the definition of "personal computer" don't buy Windows or OSX. If you can't get one without Windows pre-installed, buy it and claim the Windows tax back. If you want to buy an Apple product, you accept the digital straitjacket built into it's DNA as a part of the "cool" package. If you're in a position of influence inside a company / school / local government do your bit to help people by trying to switch them away from Microsoft products.
It does seem that Microsoft, and to a lesser degree Apple, seem to have abandoned their end users. They are not worthy of your loyalty if they insist on shafting you more and more with each release. They see you as nothing more than a barrier to your wallet.
We know botnets are a Windows problem, they won't want to go on the record about it though. As Bill Gate's once said "our products just aren't designed for security".
The point about the user taking the effort to find out which application they are using is not helped by Gnome's naming policy. I use (and love) GEdit, yet I have no "GEdit" on my menu, nor on my alternate click. What I do have is "Text Editor" which by some coincidence, IS GEdit; I rest my case.
The question is about (lack of) choice, or (lack of) control. This was done without asking the user. To be fair, they always have the owners consent as they own the copy of Windows you license to use but that's not the point. Some people choose not to have certain formats on principles of free software such as Flash player, which they accept limits their use of some sites; this is a price they are willing to pay as it's their choice.....Flash is not included in a Microsoft update, any distro the user chooses which has Flash, they can easily remove it. Despite Microsoft shills trumpeting the acceptance of Silverlight, nobody wants it, yet no doubt Microsoft would happily install that on people's Firefox installs without asking too to increase the user base, which in turn fakes popularity. If people are stupid enough to code .NET sites, most likely they're on a diet of M$ cool aid anyway, which means they're still convinced IE is the best of the browsers. Surfers using Firefox can easily add the extension on manually.....you know....like they do with EVERY other add on they need. If Microsoft had been a reputable company, they'd have put the add on in the Mozilla add ons site like everyone else's.
.NET installed and used, the more they can freeze out the competition. Microsoft never have, and never will like competition, mainly because they can't compete like for like on products.
Microsoft have long thought of the end user as someone to be used and abused for profit, this is yet another sterling example of their arrogance. They let IE stagnate because they had no serious competition, which meant all the complaints of pop ups were ignored. Only after they started to notice a trend of users switching did they decide to dust off the IE code and see how they could compete. Given that they treat their OWN customers with such contempt, do you really think they're gonna give a shit about pissing on those who have abandoned their IE in favor of a proper browser? They already do their level best to make sure govt's have "IE & Windows only" websites to block the competition, the more they can get
With all the mistakes and arrogance, 2009 is the year Microsoft's empire starts to collapse. It won't be quick, and it'll also take down plenty of companies and shills who have tied their credibility and income to Microsoft. The end has begun.......and it's all self inflicted; they had the world in their hands and blew it in spectacular style.
Funny you should mention "desperation"; it was the first word which sprang to my mind when I saw the headline too.
That's what I was thinking, it's the first real world application for Surface, although I wouldn't trust any M$ software to hold up in a mission critical application. The last thing you'd want in a riot control scenario is your planning desk to suddenly tell you it can't find foo.dll and blue screen on you.
That aside, wouldn't it be just like Microsoft to implement a new licensing model for this, like the schools. Schools (under some licensing conditions) had to buy a Windows license for every PC in the building, regardless of how many of those PC's were going to be running Windows. This could be exploited the same way, where the cost is worked out on the number of people working from that control room, with values on each rank....a per attendee fee. (Bought and paid for) Politicians get in free, assuming they continue to remember their duties of course.
On a funnier note, many areas are associated with their local sports teams and colors. Wouldn't other areas demand a screen of death in THEIR local colors? I mean, if blue is associated with your local rivals, it's like a slap in the face from them on match day if their colors suddenly wash over you in the control room. It's not good for the blood pressure when you want to be thinking calmly about rebooting and hoping the situation don't spiral out of control by the time the application comes back to life.
I notice one of the features listed is the ability to prevent third parties from tracking your web browsing habits, which would presumably mean "anyone other than the owner". Since Microsoft believe in retaining ownership of the software and licensing it to you, do they consider themselves a third party? Or is this just a convenient little "block the competition, while leaving a loophole for us"?
Ya gonna love it, it never fails. I guess with all the Microsoft layoffs, you want to make sure you're performing huh?
1 - Microsoft will have to agree to install Firefox by default in the EU to avoid even more fines.
2 - They will insist that IE is still installed too, as it's baked so deep into Windows that it'd require a hefty rewrite to remove, not to mention their spyware / update system demands Active X, which only they know how to implement.
3 - They will insist on installing it themselves, and install a modified version which will be buggy as hell, take up oodles of resources and crash like a plane which finds it's engines mysteriously vanish mid-flight.
4 - As part of the modified Firefox all crashes will point to microsoft.com "advice" about how IE is perfect and crash-free, and advise them to start using it.
5 - They'll also insist that IE is the default browser, even if a broken Firefox is there too.
6 - They'll disable all of the security features of their Firefox build, make some defaults unable to be changed, all to give people a bad impression of Firefox.
7 - They'll start the FUD campaign exposing the flaws (they added) against their magnificent IE.
8 - They'll insist that the Firefox pre-installed is the very same as everyone else's Firefox, so all the flaws are Mozilla's, not theirs.
9 - In a few years another lawsuit will reveal this collusion, and history will start to repeat again......as it always does with Microsoft.
To the M$ shills astroturfung at /.
Feel free to mark this as flamebait, many companies make mistakes and learn from them. Many companies have bad leadership and make big mistakes; in most cases the company starts to change after being punished and the CEO involved is removed. Microsoft are 100% unrepentant in everything they do, they see nothing wrong in what they do, the only thing they see as "wrong" is people standing up to them and holding them to account. They deserve NO benefit of the doubt.
Is he going to thank Microsoft for their invaluable assistance in his career and sentencing award? After all, without Microsoft's dodgy software he wouldn't be able to have done what he did. Maybe he could just throw a chair at the judge in a symbolic gesture of thanks to Steve Ballmer.
Or does this paint a picture of lots of M$ employees on the SS Microsoft desperately using a chain of buckets to scoop water overboard as the ship sinks, complete with a chair shaped hole in the cabin window and an enraged bald man throwing a hissyfit inside?
.doc to close to 100% (for most users) it provides a loophole in Microsoft's vendor lock in strategy, so the solution is to fuck with the format, make sure it's not documented and pass the update to their own office suite. If it wasn't for the constant moving of the goalposts, they no doubt could document and provide a decent standard (even if it is patent encumbered and proprietary) which would let them easily submit the documentation they are struggling with now.
Microsoft don't want to have to release documentation, that would allow others to make their software more compatible with Microsoft formats, which weakens the vendor lock in obsession they have. They are only reluctantly releasing half arsed documentation to try and avoid even more fines, they don't want those documents to actually be of any use. They want people to be trawling through books of crap to get to the details. They want to casually "forget" some key elements. The last thing they need is people actually forcing Microsoft to fix the documentation so they are useful, it defeats the original plan. Look at the crap they submited for OfficeOpenXML filed under the usual "don't worry if it's a bit messy, we promise to clean it up AFTER you make it a standard." tag.
It was like the truck of Iraqi WMD documentation offered at the last minute to stave off a pre-destined invasion.....mostly fluff and bullshit aimed as a PR move (look, we're the good guys, we're complying, it's the nasty regulators who are trying to bully us).
Microsoft seem hell bent on focussing all their efforts on lobbyists and lawyers than actually making their products something people WANT to buy. I believe the main reason for all the shit with the formats spec changing is to keep one step ahead of proper interoperability. As the OSS peeps reverse engineer the latest
Remember this is stuff they are doing ONLY under orders from a judge with threats of fines for non-compliance. This is the proverbial kid being dragged down to someone's house by their parents and being forced to apologise, when they clearly think they've done nothing wrong.
Have Apple started putting eject buttons on their CD / DVD drives yet or do you still need to press a button on the keyboard for this?
Names are important, all (reputable) marketing people will tell you that. Companies spend a fortune trying to find just the right name and slogan which will associate the customers mind to what they want. Microsoft have never included the version number in the name before. How many people knew this was the 7th incarnation of everyone's favourite virus compatible platform? I've even seen debate on whether it's the 8th or not.
The point is that 2007 / 2008 have been the years of Vista. Is the "7" going to associate people with "Windows in 2007"? It may not get it's final release until late 2009, early 2010. Are people going the be thinking it's a 2007 product which is late? Vista was 5 or so years late so they do have form. Even Vista's final release was as buggy as a beta. Wouldn't it not be a better idea to give it name?
I say this as a Linux user who enjoys a good laugh at every Microsoft own goal.
After working to hype it so much, they better make sure they come through with the goods otherwise it may just backfire on them. The richest corporation on the planet with TWO failed releases of their flagship product one after the other. Vista already hurt them, they NEED Win7 to be a hit; specially to improve perceptions. Mojave didn't work, maybe another fresh skin for Vista and another new name will do the trick this time, as long as they hold it back long enough for people to believe it's actually a new product. But not to worry, we all know how great Microsoft's final releases are, right?