But big sources of electricity are only good for big companies. For everybody else small sources of electricity have many advantages.
Pretty much every aspect of modern society is reliant on "big sources of electricity", either directly (say, air conditioned buildings) or by extension (say, anything made out of aluminium).
The power plants where basically not at all hit by the earthquake. The earthquake was over 500 miles AWAY!!!! The power plant only was hit by the tsunami. And what is that? Just a fucking wave of water. It did not hurt and could not hurt the plant in anyway! The fucking plant did not "withstand" anything! Because there was nothing to withstand.
I guess that explains the complete lack of damage to any buildings or structure in the rest of Japan as well.
It's not that OSS is *necessarily* a better way of working, it's that closed-source software *takes away your freedom to use the software*. Proprietary software leaves you at the mercy of the existence and will of the manufacturer to continue to support it, and not do anything evil to you.
Astute readers will notice that, as a rule, the same is true of nearly any product or service you pay someone else for.
MS Office was not the best when it achieved dominance, but it is the "best" now - for most definitions of best.
Actually it was, precisely because Microsoft expended a huge amount of resources finding out what it would take for people to switch from the alternative products, and then implemented those features (including, for example, compatibility modes with the other products that emulated their keyboard shortcuts).
Sometimes documents opened by the same version of MSOffice will be displayed differently.
This is almost certainly because the printer and/or page setup is different. It's doing exactly what a WYSIWYG word processor *should* do.
But preservation of formatting just is not that critical in an editor.
That depends on what you mean by "formatting". Explicit formatting (say, a manually inserted page break) should absolutely be preserved. Implicit formatting (like, say, exactly where a paragraph of fully justified text flows) should change automatically to account for different page sizes, printer capabilities, etc.
Anyone who really needs an (almost) unbreakable display format should use PDF or PS.
Yes. If you want something that looks the same regardless of output device, then you should use a format designed for that purpose. Word processor files are not, any more than HTML is.
Try this next time you see a 100% metric recipe for 6 people (say 1gram). Convert it, in your head, for 8 people.
Most recipes I've seen (and I will admit to not cooking to a recipe often) are specced for either two or four people, with two becoming more common. Taking either of them to other common numbers (3, 6, 8, etc) is pretty simple maths (with the possible exception of 4 -> 3).
This means that in-house IT will be able to cannibalise machines for spares after a year or two, and replace the batteries, without having to send things off for increasingly expensive repairs.
Which will still almost certainly be cheaper than paying someone to take apart two tablets and put them back together into a working one.
I was using Windows2000, Linux and OS 10.1 regularly. I certainly did not find OS 10.1 unusably slow or even problematic. It might have been on bad hardware, I was using a dual core 500mhz G4 system which was better than average (though not by a ton). I multitasked heavily, several large apps cutting and pasting between them. You can read John Siracusa's review of 10.0. He finds the performance, relative to OS 9 a mixed bag.
I've used just about every version of OS X, on just about every different type of Mac, for about the last decade. Even with many of the G5s it was still sluggish, and in the G3 and G4 days it was just awful.
No. It doesn't have a primitive graphic system with support for movies. It has a really nice included video player. Think about OLE but with video supported by all apps. So you can "cut and paste" frames from a movie. Same thing with sound.
What ? Where in a default OS X install are the tools to do this sort of video editing ?
I think you don't quite get what Sherlock did. You may be thinking spotlight. Sherlock was an integrated search that went well beyond files on my system:
This sounds very similar to the "integration" IE4 offered. I didn't use Macs much in the Classic days, however, so I'm happy to leave it.
Huh? OS/2 was running a VDM dos environment. And that was on 286's with 4 megs of ram.
Yes, but a VDM only gives you *DOS apps*. The proper comparison is *Win16 apps* in a fully virtualised container, which OS/2 wasn't doing (and certainly not on a 286). A win16 app could (and did) crash the whole system, for example.
Huh? No. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 loaded the drivers and memory management from DOS. That's the whole reason everyone in the 3.0 days bought QEMM [wikipedia.org], to replace HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE because it was so important to get the drivers to work right on the DOS level. It was DOS6 not Windows that began to solve these problems. I was an OS/2 guy after Windows 3.1 so I didn't worry about this nonsense but I had to worry about it all through Windows 3.0 and 3.1.
No, QEMM was bought to maximise memory availability when running DOS apps. It had nothing to do with running Windows apps.
I have dozens of windows open right now. And I'm on a macbook that's almost 3 years old.
All I can say the my "normal" workload brings a 4GB RAM MacBookPro5,1 to its knees, as far as responsiveness goes.
The Wiki errs when it implies that the code was present only in Microsoft's beta software. Unless, of course, every single copy of Windows 3.1 and 3.11 that I have ever worked with were actually betas!
Which version of DR-DOS will Windows 3.1 or 3.11 not install and run on ?
From my point of view, every single time that Windows is brought to it's knees with spyware, trojans, viruses, or whatever malware - then Microsoft has failed.
Really ? That's like saying every time someone steals an Escort, Ford has failed. Even if 50% of the time it's because the owner left the keys in the ignition and 40% of the time it's because the installer of the aftermarket alarm and immobilizer got it wrong..
But, I hold Microsoft entirely responsible for their shoddy security and permissions scheme.
"Shoddy" in what respect ? What capabilties does Windows lack ?
If Microsoft could and would adopt the restrictive security and permissions of any *nix, then Windows would fail far less often.
Windows has a security and permissions model more comprehensive than - and equally restrictive as - traditional/typical UNIX systems, and has had for the better part of two decades now. Even the consumer versions have had it for ten years.
I don't know what "ready for public consumption" was.
Rhapsody was a developer beta. Kodiak was a public beta. 10.0 wasn't much better than Kodiak.
As far as the broad public, that is Mac users. They liked it.
No they didn't. Early versions of OS X were shunned due its atrocious performance and (to many) inferior - albeit pretty - UI. Heck, Apple themselves didn't even use OS X as the default option on their systems until the beginning of 2002, and the first version of OS X that wasn't borderline-unusably slow was 10.2 (it was still slow, but at least not frustrating to use).
OS-8 was an advanced OS but things hadn't improved for a long time and OS-9 wasn't much better.
MacOS Classic, even by version 9, was only marginally more advanced than Windows 3.1.
Yes but in reality I'm a pretty good case study. I ended up buying 10.2 and 10.6.
Most Mac users I know have bought every OS X upgrade since release (even the ones that stuck with MacOS 9 until ca. 2002). Snow Leopard has been the only one they've hesistated with (though nearly all eventually cracked).
This was not helped by Apple's (typical) bad attitude to legacy support, with older versions of OS X quickly being completely deprecated and unsupported, not to mention incapable of running newer versions of apps and games.
That's 5x$129, though I suppose in hindsight you could reduce it to four because any Mac that was running the original 10.0 would be unsupported (not to mention unusable) past 10.4.
So it's 4x$129 plus a new Mac.:)
a) You agree with the display system. Though honestly I'm not sure they really caught up with Quartz extreme in terms of offloading graphics.
It exceeded it in capabilities. Though, as with OS X, those are somewhat underutilised.
b) I had the equivalent of power shell with OS shells, and frankly better. With Applescript I had application level easy scripting.
Applescript is indeed nice, though I would argue that few use it.
c) I had movie integration features, i.e. quicktime as a low level component.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but Windows has had its Quicktime equivalent built-in since Windows 95.
d) I had "virtual folders" i.e. aliases and softlinks.
Windows has had shortcuts since Windows 95.
e) Dock used applications not windows, per windows 7
And Windows 7 took a huge step backwards in terms of UI usability for multitaskers by doing so (and it started with that godawful "collapsing multiple taskbar buttons" in Windows XP, which Windows 7's Taskbar is just a logical development of). Probably best not to bring up the Dock at all, it's a UI catastrophe, especially the earlier versions (Apple short-circuited the awfulness of the Dock as a task-switching tool with Expose, though Expose also has problems once you move past a non-trivial number of Windows).
f) Bonjour which Windows still doesn't have
Microsoft implemented Zeroconf and UPNP (what Apple calls Bonjour) in Windows XP.
g) CUPS, which is IMHO less good than the print manager in Windows server but way better then what the desktops have.
I'm blown away you think having a print manager like CUPS should even be necessary on a standalone desktop. Other than pausing/cancelling jobs, and maybe selecting a different printer, just what else does a normal desktop user need
Rhapsody and Kodiak came out in 1997 and 2000 respectively
And neither of them were remotely ready to public consumption. Heck, 10.0 barely was (as tacitly admitted by the free 10.1 upgrade).
10.1 was a free upgrade (I think you had to pay like $10 for media) for 10.0.
Yes. Just like I said.
10.7 will likely cost $129 I don't disagree. My point was that it ain't $100 a year. You could have ridden OSX for many years without paying for the OS. After 10.2 you are on a $129 / 2 year cycle.
Well, it's basically impossible to average it out across the last decade, because somewhere around 2009 you had to buy a whole new machine to get the updated OS.
However, from 2001-2007 (10.0 - 10.5), you would have averaged $107.50/yr (5*129/6). Assuming 10.7 hits this year at $129, you would have paid about $40/yr since buying your new Mac.
And frankly I loved when the OS was improving rapidly. It was great with 10.2 where I was a decade ahead of windows.
No you weren't. The only meaningful capability OS X had over Windows was its display system, and that discrepancy ended in 2006, with Vista. Even during that time, Windows was superior in most ways, in particular it had much better and more mature low level kernel optimisations, especially on SMP systems. Most of the low-level improvements Apple were making to OS X in the 2001-2007 timeframe, Microsoft had been making to NT in the 1996-2003 timeframe (people seem to forget Apple were ~7 years behind in releasing their "next generation OS", though that did have the benefit of being able to implement features like Rosetta and Classic Mode, that were impractical when Microsoft was doing its transition from DOS-based Windows). This is one of the big reasons OS X was so dismally slow, even on cutting edge hardware, for about the first 5 years of its existence, and why performance was improving with each release (kinda hard to go backwards from where they were).
Today they're reasonably equal, at least on the client side. On the server side, Windows is well ahead with features like Hyper-V, Terminal Services, Active Directory/Group Policy, and DFS[-R]. But Apple were never really interested in that part of the market anyway, so that's not especially surprising.
Lets see from 1997 through 2002 all the way up to 10.1.5 the upgrades were free.
OS X10.0 came out in 2001 and cost $129.
OS X 10.1 came out in 2001 and cost $129 unless you already owned 10.0.
OS X 10.2 came out in 2002 and cost $129.
OS X 10.3 came out in 2003 and cost $129.
OS X 10.4 came out in 2005 and cost $129.
OS X 10.5 came out in 2007 and cost $129. It was the last to support PPC systems.
OS X 10.6 came out in 2009 and cost $29 because you wouldn't have a machine to run it if you didn't already have 10.5.
See the pattern ? 10.7 is pretty much guaranteed to cost $129 (maybe they'll drop it to $99).
I wonder why religions even have made sex to look like a bad thing.
Same reason they frown on things like drinking - they're fun.
The point of a religion is to exert control by making them the gatekeepers of the fun, to the point of telling you that you'll be damned for eternity if you have anything more than Officiall Approved Fun(tm).
It does not follow that just because there's nothing useful to be gained from a particular endeavour, it can't be done.
And you're the one who said it was needless, it takes significant scientific and engineering ability to reach those speeds on land. Hell just to get a set of wheels that can cary that much weight at those speeds is an engineering feat.
And what are the practical applications of said feat ?
Which constraints do you think are "needless" if you're such an authority?
Building what is essentially a jet that doesn't take off, is pretty pointless.
Any endeavor which increases the collective knowledge and engineering ability of our species is "useful" and asserting otherwise is at best semantic and at worst luddism. You call real engineering and interesting science "not useful" and "needless" all you like, but so is almost all science. We don't do science because we need to but because it makes our lives better. Go back to your cave.
No, "useful" would be performing some engineering that has actual benefits. Like, say, making that jet engine twice as efficient or half the weight. Or, researching the aerodynamics on a type of ground vehicle that might actually one day be used at those sort of speeds, like a maglev train.
If you can think of a point in driving a small, ground-based vehicle to that speed by something as wasteful as a jet engine, by all means elaborate on it.
If there's nothing to be gained by it then by all rights you should already be able to do it [...]
No, that doesn't follow at all.
Where do you think new advances in engineering come from if you believe adding new, hard to satisfy, constrains and pushing physical limits of both humanity and science aren't "useful?"
I didn't say adding constraints wasn't useful, I said adding needless constraints wasn't useful.
The XNU kernel, loaded with basic drivers, kexts, and initiated space on my machine which runs OSX 10.5, displaces about 71MB. The Win7 Ultimate machine to my right displaces roughly 284MB.
Measured how ?
In terms of stack architecture, when you lift a finger to do your own research, will allow you to understand, rather than troll.
So you don't know, then ?
The vulnerability difference between the two families are well known.
What "families" ? We were talking about IE and Safari.
Microsoft has improved Windows vastly, just by demoting user space and cleaning up.NET bugs.
"Demoting user space" ? What's that supposed to mean ? How would cleaning up.NET bugs - still very much an also-ran in terms of API popularity - make "vast" improvements ?
Until XP SP2, sadly, most all users used admin/root by default, as their software wouldn't run otherwise. For years, programmers forced users, if they wanted their software to work, to use admin rights to run.
Yet strangely I managed to run NT systems as a non-Admin user since the mid-90s.
Sandboxing was so unusual as to be almost unheard of. The advent of XPSP2 demoted user space. Users could hurt themselves less.
Still not sure what you mean by "demoted", but I'm going to guess SP2 didn't do anywhere near as much as you think it did.
1) look upthread to get a sense of history. Second: your data isn't accurate
My "data" is based on a Mac running 10.6 and the PC sitting next to it. It's "up to date".
It's a pretty simple question. By what metric is OS X's kernel "smaller", with a "lowered attack surface".
Or are you referring to your mention of microkernels ? Windows is as much "microkernel based" as OS X is.
2) if you want to argue stack architecture, you went to the wrong place.
I don't want to argue anything. I want evidence (or even some reasoning) for your claims.
You're in defense of Windows for some reason, and you don't make your bias visible, so that it can be vetted or understood
If you spent less time looking for conspiracies and more time supporting your assertions, this discussion could be much more productive.
3) you use one metric; how many times have I had to scrape clean one of my family member's windows machine.
That tells you nothing conclusive about software vulnerabilities.
Safari and IE have difficulties; have you ever looked at why? The differences in engines? API sets? User behavior profiles? I think you're blithely glossing all that. You'd do well on Fox Networks, where facts have little meaning.
When you start presenting some facts, I'll be happy to look at them.
4) what is the era we're talking here?
You said "[...] MacOS was then, and to an extent is now [...]". The "era" you're talking about is certainly the present. Again, a default configuration semantic that was not even present on all installations is in no way an "inherent" security flaw.
By what measurement ? A very superficial and simple comparison shows mach_kernel on an OS X machine at about 18M and ntoskrnl.exe on a Windows 7 machine at about 5.5M.
2) better IP stack
How is it better ?
3) get your fingers out of your ears
Pwn2own always seems to get in through Safari first. I believe Safari also has had more vulnerabilities reported than IE for the last few years.
4) it was default, and therefore inherent; see #3
It was only default in unmanaged (ie: not on a domain) installations, and it ceased being the default there nearly 4-odd years ago.
It's not "inherent" when a minute's worth of work will "fix" it.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much every aspect of modern society is reliant on "big sources of electricity", either directly (say, air conditioned buildings) or by extension (say, anything made out of aluminium).
Same reason they're reading books, making phone calls and playing cards.
I guess that explains the complete lack of damage to any buildings or structure in the rest of Japan as well.
Astute readers will notice that, as a rule, the same is true of nearly any product or service you pay someone else for.
Actually it was, precisely because Microsoft expended a huge amount of resources finding out what it would take for people to switch from the alternative products, and then implemented those features (including, for example, compatibility modes with the other products that emulated their keyboard shortcuts).
This is almost certainly because the printer and/or page setup is different. It's doing exactly what a WYSIWYG word processor *should* do.
That depends on what you mean by "formatting". Explicit formatting (say, a manually inserted page break) should absolutely be preserved. Implicit formatting (like, say, exactly where a paragraph of fully justified text flows) should change automatically to account for different page sizes, printer capabilities, etc.
Yes. If you want something that looks the same regardless of output device, then you should use a format designed for that purpose. Word processor files are not, any more than HTML is.
Most recipes I've seen (and I will admit to not cooking to a recipe often) are specced for either two or four people, with two becoming more common. Taking either of them to other common numbers (3, 6, 8, etc) is pretty simple maths (with the possible exception of 4 -> 3).
Which will still almost certainly be cheaper than paying someone to take apart two tablets and put them back together into a working one.
I've used just about every version of OS X, on just about every different type of Mac, for about the last decade. Even with many of the G5s it was still sluggish, and in the G3 and G4 days it was just awful.
What ? Where in a default OS X install are the tools to do this sort of video editing ?
This sounds very similar to the "integration" IE4 offered. I didn't use Macs much in the Classic days, however, so I'm happy to leave it.
Yes, but a VDM only gives you *DOS apps*. The proper comparison is *Win16 apps* in a fully virtualised container, which OS/2 wasn't doing (and certainly not on a 286). A win16 app could (and did) crash the whole system, for example.
No, QEMM was bought to maximise memory availability when running DOS apps. It had nothing to do with running Windows apps.
All I can say the my "normal" workload brings a 4GB RAM MacBookPro5,1 to its knees, as far as responsiveness goes.
Which version of DR-DOS will Windows 3.1 or 3.11 not install and run on ?
Commonplace in commercial software. To say nothing of why you believe you should be entitled to ongoing updates for free in the first place.
I challenge you to find a commercially released version of Windows that won't install on a non-MSDOS system.
Really ? That's like saying every time someone steals an Escort, Ford has failed. Even if 50% of the time it's because the owner left the keys in the ignition and 40% of the time it's because the installer of the aftermarket alarm and immobilizer got it wrong..
"Shoddy" in what respect ? What capabilties does Windows lack ?
Windows has a security and permissions model more comprehensive than - and equally restrictive as - traditional/typical UNIX systems, and has had for the better part of two decades now. Even the consumer versions have had it for ten years.
Well, it does, but the scenario is very different.
Rhapsody was a developer beta. Kodiak was a public beta. 10.0 wasn't much better than Kodiak.
No they didn't. Early versions of OS X were shunned due its atrocious performance and (to many) inferior - albeit pretty - UI. Heck, Apple themselves didn't even use OS X as the default option on their systems until the beginning of 2002, and the first version of OS X that wasn't borderline-unusably slow was 10.2 (it was still slow, but at least not frustrating to use).
MacOS Classic, even by version 9, was only marginally more advanced than Windows 3.1.
Most Mac users I know have bought every OS X upgrade since release (even the ones that stuck with MacOS 9 until ca. 2002). Snow Leopard has been the only one they've hesistated with (though nearly all eventually cracked).
This was not helped by Apple's (typical) bad attitude to legacy support, with older versions of OS X quickly being completely deprecated and unsupported, not to mention incapable of running newer versions of apps and games.
10.0 or 10.1 - $129
10.2 - $129
10.3 - $129
10.4 - $129
10.5 - $129
That's 5x$129, though I suppose in hindsight you could reduce it to four because any Mac that was running the original 10.0 would be unsupported (not to mention unusable) past 10.4.
So it's 4x$129 plus a new Mac. :)
It exceeded it in capabilities. Though, as with OS X, those are somewhat underutilised.
Applescript is indeed nice, though I would argue that few use it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but Windows has had its Quicktime equivalent built-in since Windows 95.
Windows has had shortcuts since Windows 95.
And Windows 7 took a huge step backwards in terms of UI usability for multitaskers by doing so (and it started with that godawful "collapsing multiple taskbar buttons" in Windows XP, which Windows 7's Taskbar is just a logical development of). Probably best not to bring up the Dock at all, it's a UI catastrophe, especially the earlier versions (Apple short-circuited the awfulness of the Dock as a task-switching tool with Expose, though Expose also has problems once you move past a non-trivial number of Windows).
Microsoft implemented Zeroconf and UPNP (what Apple calls Bonjour) in Windows XP.
I'm blown away you think having a print manager like CUPS should even be necessary on a standalone desktop. Other than pausing/cancelling jobs, and maybe selecting a different printer, just what else does a normal desktop user need
And neither of them were remotely ready to public consumption. Heck, 10.0 barely was (as tacitly admitted by the free 10.1 upgrade).
Yes. Just like I said.
Well, it's basically impossible to average it out across the last decade, because somewhere around 2009 you had to buy a whole new machine to get the updated OS.
However, from 2001-2007 (10.0 - 10.5), you would have averaged $107.50/yr (5*129/6). Assuming 10.7 hits this year at $129, you would have paid about $40/yr since buying your new Mac.
No you weren't. The only meaningful capability OS X had over Windows was its display system, and that discrepancy ended in 2006, with Vista. Even during that time, Windows was superior in most ways, in particular it had much better and more mature low level kernel optimisations, especially on SMP systems. Most of the low-level improvements Apple were making to OS X in the 2001-2007 timeframe, Microsoft had been making to NT in the 1996-2003 timeframe (people seem to forget Apple were ~7 years behind in releasing their "next generation OS", though that did have the benefit of being able to implement features like Rosetta and Classic Mode, that were impractical when Microsoft was doing its transition from DOS-based Windows). This is one of the big reasons OS X was so dismally slow, even on cutting edge hardware, for about the first 5 years of its existence, and why performance was improving with each release (kinda hard to go backwards from where they were).
Today they're reasonably equal, at least on the client side. On the server side, Windows is well ahead with features like Hyper-V, Terminal Services, Active Directory/Group Policy, and DFS[-R]. But Apple were never really interested in that part of the market anyway, so that's not especially surprising.
OS X10.0 came out in 2001 and cost $129.
OS X 10.1 came out in 2001 and cost $129 unless you already owned 10.0.
OS X 10.2 came out in 2002 and cost $129.
OS X 10.3 came out in 2003 and cost $129.
OS X 10.4 came out in 2005 and cost $129.
OS X 10.5 came out in 2007 and cost $129. It was the last to support PPC systems.
OS X 10.6 came out in 2009 and cost $29 because you wouldn't have a machine to run it if you didn't already have 10.5.
See the pattern ? 10.7 is pretty much guaranteed to cost $129 (maybe they'll drop it to $99).
Only if you had 10.5 (and were honest).
Same reason they frown on things like drinking - they're fun.
The point of a religion is to exert control by making them the gatekeepers of the fun, to the point of telling you that you'll be damned for eternity if you have anything more than Officiall Approved Fun(tm).
It does not follow that just because there's nothing useful to be gained from a particular endeavour, it can't be done.
And what are the practical applications of said feat ?
Building what is essentially a jet that doesn't take off, is pretty pointless.
No, "useful" would be performing some engineering that has actual benefits. Like, say, making that jet engine twice as efficient or half the weight. Or, researching the aerodynamics on a type of ground vehicle that might actually one day be used at those sort of speeds, like a maglev train.
If you can think of a point in driving a small, ground-based vehicle to that speed by something as wasteful as a jet engine, by all means elaborate on it.
No, that doesn't follow at all.
I didn't say adding constraints wasn't useful, I said adding needless constraints wasn't useful.
Measured how ?
So you don't know, then ?
What "families" ? We were talking about IE and Safari.
"Demoting user space" ? What's that supposed to mean ? How would cleaning up .NET bugs - still very much an also-ran in terms of API popularity - make "vast" improvements ?
Yet strangely I managed to run NT systems as a non-Admin user since the mid-90s.
Still not sure what you mean by "demoted", but I'm going to guess SP2 didn't do anywhere near as much as you think it did.
No, it's not. There is nothing useful to be gained by taking a jet engine and adding the needless constraint of keeping it in contact with the ground.
My "data" is based on a Mac running 10.6 and the PC sitting next to it. It's "up to date".
It's a pretty simple question. By what metric is OS X's kernel "smaller", with a "lowered attack surface".
Or are you referring to your mention of microkernels ? Windows is as much "microkernel based" as OS X is.
I don't want to argue anything. I want evidence (or even some reasoning) for your claims.
If you spent less time looking for conspiracies and more time supporting your assertions, this discussion could be much more productive.
That tells you nothing conclusive about software vulnerabilities.
When you start presenting some facts, I'll be happy to look at them.
You said "[...] MacOS was then, and to an extent is now [...]". The "era" you're talking about is certainly the present. Again, a default configuration semantic that was not even present on all installations is in no way an "inherent" security flaw.
By what measurement ? A very superficial and simple comparison shows mach_kernel on an OS X machine at about 18M and ntoskrnl.exe on a Windows 7 machine at about 5.5M.
How is it better ?
Pwn2own always seems to get in through Safari first. I believe Safari also has had more vulnerabilities reported than IE for the last few years.
It was only default in unmanaged (ie: not on a domain) installations, and it ceased being the default there nearly 4-odd years ago.
It's not "inherent" when a minute's worth of work will "fix" it.
In what way ?
I'm sorry, I can't decipher what you mean here.
Irrelevant.
Actually this is just a default configuration issue (and only present in unmanaged installations), it's not "inherent".