Being an avid pc user, hard core gamer and a cable ISP tech, I can tell you that I have purchased every version of windows since it's inception. So here's a little about how much I trust the M$ update system. So first, I update from Win 3.1x to win95, for the nominal cost of $115. This upgrade was not that bad, as it still used the underlying HDD structure and the old FAT file system, so it wasn't a crippling upgrade on my system.
So next I decide that win95 was interesting with this new fangled gooie interface so I update to the next version, which now updates you to a FAT32 which gives a little more disk space and a slight boost in performace. Again this has no problems interfacing with my old DOS files that were still in the o/s. I had no problems with anything again. Well I guess I lied earlier, because I skipped WinME, the crap software that it was and I moved up to Win2K. Now here's where it gets interesting.
So now under the NT architecture, I find that this is an excellent way to do things, but due to imcompatibility issues with some of my older software, I opt to stay FAT32 and not ntfs. Everything works ok (except reinstalling every 3-6 months because of various vulnerablities that are exploited) for quite a while.
So here we go, upgrade to XP build 2600, no service packs, it's just in it inception. I upgrade my system, and lo and behold, even with a FAT32 HDD, I have to upgrade ALL of my software, apparently in an effort to make more money M$ decided that it was in everyones best interest to not be allowed to run 16bit software on their new o/s. So here I am, running around with an o/s that always breaks, with 90% of my programs not loading because they are not a valid "win32" application.
I deal with it, I get over it. Money spent, software upgraded.
New Service Pack comes out and all is good (shoulda known it'd be too good to be true).
New SP2 comes out and the auto upgrade goes through, crashes the system, screws my programs. So I wait until SP2 is released as an integrated install. Install new windows and lo and behold, now I have to format in NTFS, because any commercial copy of WINXPSP2 that you buy no longer supports FAT32 on installation. So here I am on a system that negates all of my old software, I can't play any old games for nostalgia, my old word processors and spreadsheets all are not working, and this is what M$ wants you to believe is nescessary.
In any industry there is always that one group that wants to force you to upgrade, and as any logistical engineer can tell you this is called "planned obsolecence". In essence they force you to upgrade, in order to continue being able to use the newer products you have to give up the old ones.
Now with M$ it never seems like the transition goes smoothly, I have a ton of software that I paid for that I can't use, and the inclusion of 8-16 bit extensions in XP would not have been difficult. The architecture was there, they just can't stand to see you not buying their newer software.
Normally I would not be above upgrading, but in this situation, the plan was to make sure that every user out there on a M$ platform would be forced to spend additional money at M$ but also at all of the software vendors that had to upgrade their code to comply with M$.
This has been one of the major reasons for the open source community (I have 7 boxes on linux and one on windows now) coming to the forefront.
USERS DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO CHANGE. Imagine the uproar that would occur if GM or Ford turned around and told you that you 2 year old automobile was no longer supported unless you put a new motor in it, because with the recent upgrades to you car model in their system, that this motor is better even though the old one is working just fine, and that if u don't do this at you own expense, the warranty will be void, but they are not willing to foot the bill.
This comes down to M$ being a monopoly, and if you don't follow their rules, then you may as well rot. Thus the current migration of a lot of tech savvy users to open source. If there is an error in t
Well I've seen a lot of comments saying it would adversley affect legitimate business to ban the aol domains, my reply to this would be that if the businesses are being affected then they would need to change to a more reliable ISP who takes the concerns of it's subscribers to heart. If you want AOL to change, the only way to do that is to hit the in the only place they care about. If AOL is getting blacklisted, and you can't get email to your subscribers or customers, you change to someone who can make it happen. Large corps only listen to profit. Remove their subscribers, you remove their profits. I think it's about time someone finally showed AOL that they are not immune because they make hunderded of millions on the profit sheet.
Point taken, and the point of sheer use of the M$ based systems leads to the conclusion that you will deal with more compromised M$ based systems than others. And I didn't realize the study itself was based on server issues of the software and not inclusive of end users also in the home.
I am also very happy (as far as being happy with M$ can go) with the security fixes released in SP2 along with the popup blocker and malicious software remover (more recently). M$ is definately trying to keep up, but with the sheer volume of M$ based systems, you will defiantely see exponetially more compromised systems.
Thankyou for clearing up that this was a server based test and not a platform wide on. Maybe now my comments will make sense 8)
My question would be... "Would you actually want someone to have access to M$ code?" I agree fully with the open source system, I use freeBSD myself. But given all the M$ security issues in the past, I don't think I'd want some script kiddy finding a way to cripple critical systems. I am a net tech and a release of any new M$ hack or exploit is a headache in the least, let alone having the ablitliy to create patches to increase those exploits by having the code and knowing where to apply the patch.
Well, being an internet tech, I'd cry foul. Funny how we never seem to deal with problems from our non windoze subs, yet those who do use MS based OS are always convinced it's a problem with the service and not with their PC, even when their kids linux box still works through their router.
Slashdot Mirror
Being an avid pc user, hard core gamer and a cable ISP tech, I can tell you that I have purchased every version of windows since it's inception. So here's a little about how much I trust the M$ update system. So first, I update from Win 3.1x to win95, for the nominal cost of $115. This upgrade was not that bad, as it still used the underlying HDD structure and the old FAT file system, so it wasn't a crippling upgrade on my system. So next I decide that win95 was interesting with this new fangled gooie interface so I update to the next version, which now updates you to a FAT32 which gives a little more disk space and a slight boost in performace. Again this has no problems interfacing with my old DOS files that were still in the o/s. I had no problems with anything again. Well I guess I lied earlier, because I skipped WinME, the crap software that it was and I moved up to Win2K. Now here's where it gets interesting. So now under the NT architecture, I find that this is an excellent way to do things, but due to imcompatibility issues with some of my older software, I opt to stay FAT32 and not ntfs. Everything works ok (except reinstalling every 3-6 months because of various vulnerablities that are exploited) for quite a while. So here we go, upgrade to XP build 2600, no service packs, it's just in it inception. I upgrade my system, and lo and behold, even with a FAT32 HDD, I have to upgrade ALL of my software, apparently in an effort to make more money M$ decided that it was in everyones best interest to not be allowed to run 16bit software on their new o/s. So here I am, running around with an o/s that always breaks, with 90% of my programs not loading because they are not a valid "win32" application. I deal with it, I get over it. Money spent, software upgraded. New Service Pack comes out and all is good (shoulda known it'd be too good to be true). New SP2 comes out and the auto upgrade goes through, crashes the system, screws my programs. So I wait until SP2 is released as an integrated install. Install new windows and lo and behold, now I have to format in NTFS, because any commercial copy of WINXPSP2 that you buy no longer supports FAT32 on installation. So here I am on a system that negates all of my old software, I can't play any old games for nostalgia, my old word processors and spreadsheets all are not working, and this is what M$ wants you to believe is nescessary. In any industry there is always that one group that wants to force you to upgrade, and as any logistical engineer can tell you this is called "planned obsolecence". In essence they force you to upgrade, in order to continue being able to use the newer products you have to give up the old ones. Now with M$ it never seems like the transition goes smoothly, I have a ton of software that I paid for that I can't use, and the inclusion of 8-16 bit extensions in XP would not have been difficult. The architecture was there, they just can't stand to see you not buying their newer software. Normally I would not be above upgrading, but in this situation, the plan was to make sure that every user out there on a M$ platform would be forced to spend additional money at M$ but also at all of the software vendors that had to upgrade their code to comply with M$. This has been one of the major reasons for the open source community (I have 7 boxes on linux and one on windows now) coming to the forefront. USERS DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO CHANGE. Imagine the uproar that would occur if GM or Ford turned around and told you that you 2 year old automobile was no longer supported unless you put a new motor in it, because with the recent upgrades to you car model in their system, that this motor is better even though the old one is working just fine, and that if u don't do this at you own expense, the warranty will be void, but they are not willing to foot the bill. This comes down to M$ being a monopoly, and if you don't follow their rules, then you may as well rot. Thus the current migration of a lot of tech savvy users to open source. If there is an error in t
Well I've seen a lot of comments saying it would adversley affect legitimate business to ban the aol domains, my reply to this would be that if the businesses are being affected then they would need to change to a more reliable ISP who takes the concerns of it's subscribers to heart. If you want AOL to change, the only way to do that is to hit the in the only place they care about. If AOL is getting blacklisted, and you can't get email to your subscribers or customers, you change to someone who can make it happen. Large corps only listen to profit. Remove their subscribers, you remove their profits. I think it's about time someone finally showed AOL that they are not immune because they make hunderded of millions on the profit sheet.
Point taken, and the point of sheer use of the M$ based systems leads to the conclusion that you will deal with more compromised M$ based systems than others. And I didn't realize the study itself was based on server issues of the software and not inclusive of end users also in the home.
I am also very happy (as far as being happy with M$ can go) with the security fixes released in SP2 along with the popup blocker and malicious software remover (more recently). M$ is definately trying to keep up, but with the sheer volume of M$ based systems, you will defiantely see exponetially more compromised systems.
Thankyou for clearing up that this was a server based test and not a platform wide on. Maybe now my comments will make sense 8)
My question would be... "Would you actually want someone to have access to M$ code?" I agree fully with the open source system, I use freeBSD myself. But given all the M$ security issues in the past, I don't think I'd want some script kiddy finding a way to cripple critical systems. I am a net tech and a release of any new M$ hack or exploit is a headache in the least, let alone having the ablitliy to create patches to increase those exploits by having the code and knowing where to apply the patch.
Well, being an internet tech, I'd cry foul. Funny how we never seem to deal with problems from our non windoze subs, yet those who do use MS based OS are always convinced it's a problem with the service and not with their PC, even when their kids linux box still works through their router.