What I'd be interested in seeing is benchmarks for desktop and 3d performance. It's all very well saying "ooooh look at how much shit it removes!" if it has no actual impact on performance. Most of the things it appears this thing removes will have barely any impact on hard disc space, cpu cycles or memory usage - MSN Installer for instance; removing that will free up a couple of megabytes of hard-disc space at best.
And I love the way in one breath you've manage to berate MS for spreading FUD and being biased, and then making generic completely unsubstantiated claims like "vista probably has more then linux and MAC combined".
I'm willing to admit that few bugs fixed/reported does not necessarily mean more secure, but it's still a good sign at the very least being that it certainly has more users than Mac and Linux combined.
Ok, but that's like suggesting Apache is insecure because of a vulnerability in php...if a website gets hacked because of a Apache module being exploited, is it Apache's fault? Of course not.
That's my point. By that token IIS6 core is secure. Prove me wrong, mod me flamebait if you want, but it doesn't change the irrefutable fact IIS6 is secure. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary of course.
Christ, even Slashdot had an article mentioning IIS6 never having had any exploits for it. I'll find it if you really want.
Is Windows inherently more insecure than OSX for example?
True, you can say "security holes fixed != number of security holes", but then to even be equal on the score cards, Windows, as entire eco-system (Vista + XP) would still need 5 times more the number of vulnerabilities.
I put it to you my techie friends, Windows security isn't so bad after all and has evolved from non-existent to at least on the same footing with it's rivals (that's to say, I agree that I don't think this study can conclude much at all ultimately).
Question: Here on slashdot, it's assumed that Vista is shit, worse than cancer, etc. Do you accept Vista will become just as dominant as XP? If so, why?
I got a feeling you're going to say "Because MS forces it down the throats of the retailers", but I don't buy that. How so? Is there any (recent) evidence? You all equally claim Linux is ready for the desktop, and at the end of the day it's free too, so why oh why is Windows 95% dominant?
I'm not trolling, I'm asking. To me it doesn't add up.
I'm not sure I agree with your assumption Windows has millions of security exploits. From the millions you think there are, can you provide just one perhaps?.Net binaries aren't quick to load indeed (compared to natively coded apps anyway), and typically take up quite a chunk of memory once loaded (depending on what you've got available in fact). But neither characteristics are that important to be honest, as managed.Net code once loaded runs pretty darn fast. Case in point, they re-coded Quake 2 with.Net, and actually in areas it ran faster than the native code.
There's nothing wrong with native code, and it's all about choosing the right tool for the job of course, but managed code takes so much hassle out of developing business solutions at least, why go back to managing memory again? It's the same view that C++ programmers would take with assembly-language - there are cases where you'd want to, but other than that, why?
I don't see how clicking Allow is any more annoying than entering the su password every time you do an admin task, which in that respect was my point.
Again, if you think UAC is just a marketing gimmick, then really, ffs, try reading about it or actually use Vista long enough to form a useful opinion. It's a nicer version of su, thus is you find UAC annoying, you will by definition find su even more annoying.
It makes Windows more secure than *nix (i.e Vista is the only OS in the world where even root != root), and is less irritating than su (you don't need to type password every time, assuming you are "root").
Read about it. Try it. It works ok in practise. If you really hate the idea of not being root always and forever, it's 5 clicks to turn it off.
Ok, in IT, there's essentially two paradigms. Microsoft and !Microsoft (which that alone is a sign on how succesfull MS are).
The !Microsoft oriented people seem to have a lot more distaste for Microsoft stuff than the other way round, and article postings such as this one is evidence of that. Being, let's say, heavily based in Microsoft, I have tried and indeed on occasion promote OSS tech over MS tech sometimes, and the same goes for my colleagues. Every time I've asked someone bad-mouthing MS stuff how much time they've given to Vista for instance, and the response is along the lines of "fuck off n00b".
Now, I don't think for a minute that if Microsoft could wave a magic wand and have OSS disappear they wouldn't (no matter how expensive that wand might be), but you all miss a trick here. For Microsoft people, this war isn't about religion, it's ultimately about money. That means any anti-Linux propaganda they may (or may not) push out is calculated with a cool head. On slashdot, anti-microsoft propaganda is often pure bitching and rabid foaming at the mouth by some obscure geek sat at home with an opinion the rest of the world doesn't care about. Sometimes you guys have a point, let's not pretend it's all ranting (not even nearly), but you must realise, school-ground article submissions like this one only serve to make you look like kids, and very unprofessional. That image sticks, and spreads too - all of which is a shame BECAUSE FOSS projects genuinely have thier own niche in the IT universe.
Remember, IT isn't religion, it's a profession, a skill, a choice, whatever. Microsoft for all you bash them, in my opinion look far more organised and professional than the anti-Microsoft people seeking at all costs and turns, to bash and tarnish them. And Microsoft are winning already; just keep checking that MSFT ticker.
Bring the mod points, this is an unpopular opinion I know, but to quote a cliché - "I've got karma to burn"
1. No, Microsoft stock is doing just fine, despite the Vista failure/disaster you keep harping on about as a sinking ship. Take a look at how bad MSFT stock has tanked in the last 12 months - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=1y
2. I can run 12 year old software in Vista without modification. Can you run a 12 year old binary in Linux and have it still work? Unlikely. Most binary drivers break with a simple kernel upgrade.
3a. Link? In my experience people choose php because frankly its piss easy, Java because its cross platform, and.Net if it can run on Windows. There's some cross-over, but not much. Additionally, Java probably is more popular, but only because it had a 10 year head-start..Net is a superb platform (for Win systems at least), I challenge you to try and spin that one.
3b. Developer popularity around.Net tech is healthy thanks. A quick look on monster.com shows more or less the same results for.net and java positions.
4. Spread like wildfire for home users? I don't call 0.6% of desktops spreading like wildfire. Apple have the most to take from Microsoft in this area. What games runs on Linux? Not many. Linux is great if it does all you want already, but in the home the software needs to run anything and everything, which Linux doesn't.
Proprietary code is here to stay. So is OOS. Learn to deal with it.
I'm sure I speak for most IT professionals when I say when something comes along that's better for the particular job than Windows is, we'll switch eventually. This isn't religion, just practical and professional common-sense.
Until that day, I don't think Windows is that bad to be honest. Having said that, I'd add that competition is healthy and so is diversity, but removing Windows won't achieve anything.
I see the blindly anti-Microsoft idiots are awake today then. The GP was completely lying about UAC - it works by design, end of story. If you see UAC popup too often it is because a badly written app is trying to do stuff it shouldn't.
Imagine if you will an application for linux that auto-edits the xorg.conf file. In Linux it would simply fail unless run directly as root or run after a su. In Vista, UAC would kick in automatically asking for priveledge elevation rather than automatically denying it - and that's when logged in as 'root' - more secure than Linux if you ask me, which for an equivalent level credential will just grant full access without thinking twice.
Users know when the screen goes dark and the "A program wants to change your computer" box comes up, their computer is about to have something changed. They can either click yes or no. I'm sorry but UAC works, and it works well IMO - it's just a shame there's so many apps used to Admin level rights without even asking for it; that's the true problem.
Office Benchmarks? WTF? So slashdotters, if you're a hardened copy+paster, XP SP3 appears to be the way forward for you.
Any chance of a real benchmark? Say gaming performance, disk performance, memory utilisation......I dunno, anything more useful than how many word documents I can spell-check simultaneously.
Actually, it's the whole business/enterprise functionality that most slashdotters either don't know about or conveniently choose to overlook.
Active Directory + Group Policy Management (server and client side) is the most single integrated solution from client to server that exists. There may other systems that reproduce similar functionality (like samba for instance), but nothing exists as an integrated top-to-bottom solution like Windows AD.
The only other system that came close (and some would argue was better) is Novell Netware, but that doesn't really exist any more.
Not at all. My point was you can make Vista use less memory, cpu and disk i/o but the gains are small/none-at-all/negative (depending on your point of view), hence they're enabled by default.
I agree which is why I keep all the services switched on, but it's one reason why I've noticed people say Vista is "slow" (quote marks deliberate) - hard-disc thrashing and high memory usage. My point was that you can get Vista to behave more or less like XP by turning these things off, although you lose their benefit. Keeping these services on ups CPU cycles and memory, even if the machine is ultimately faster in the long-run.
Do some research and you'll find you don't need a service pack to tune Vista:
Turn off: Volume Shadow Copy (files won't be versioned automatically any more), indexing service (rapid searching won't work any more), and SuperFetch (apps wont be pre-loaded and so will start slower, but you'll have more "free memory" on average - a debatable benefit anyway).
You'll notice XP levels of disc activity (barely any) and lot's more free memory. That's because Vista's not doing anything. Personally, I like to be able to search instantly, have apps load instantly, and have my critical files backed up transparently; so I don't mind the "bloat".
Anyway, if you actually know how Windows works, you'll know what you don't want running and what you do. Turn off the stuff you don't want, but most people are fine with the defaults even if it means using more resources.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'd be interested in seeing is benchmarks for desktop and 3d performance. It's all very well saying "ooooh look at how much shit it removes!" if it has no actual impact on performance. Most of the things it appears this thing removes will have barely any impact on hard disc space, cpu cycles or memory usage - MSN Installer for instance; removing that will free up a couple of megabytes of hard-disc space at best.
Anyone got any useful benchmarks?
And I love the way in one breath you've manage to berate MS for spreading FUD and being biased, and then making generic completely unsubstantiated claims like "vista probably has more then linux and MAC combined".
I'm willing to admit that few bugs fixed/reported does not necessarily mean more secure, but it's still a good sign at the very least being that it certainly has more users than Mac and Linux combined.
http://secunia.com/product/1438/?task=advisories
Read about MOSS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharePoint_Services#Microsoft_Office_SharePoint_Server
Read about Google - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Enterprise_products
Apart from the keyword "search", there's very few similarities at all. Microsoft Office SharePoint Server is in it's own genre it would appear.
Ok, but that's like suggesting Apache is insecure because of a vulnerability in php...if a website gets hacked because of a Apache module being exploited, is it Apache's fault? Of course not.
That's my point. By that token IIS6 core is secure. Prove me wrong, mod me flamebait if you want, but it doesn't change the irrefutable fact IIS6 is secure. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary of course.
Christ, even Slashdot had an article mentioning IIS6 never having had any exploits for it. I'll find it if you really want.
For it's default install anyway. Plug-in components have had to be patched, but IIS6 core never since its release years ago.
IIS6 by default is rock solid secure.
It was too close to the truth perhaps. Truth dosn't go down too well around these parts.
So I put the question to the crowd then...
Is Windows inherently more insecure than OSX for example?
True, you can say "security holes fixed != number of security holes", but then to even be equal on the score cards, Windows, as entire eco-system (Vista + XP) would still need 5 times more the number of vulnerabilities.
I put it to you my techie friends, Windows security isn't so bad after all and has evolved from non-existent to at least on the same footing with it's rivals (that's to say, I agree that I don't think this study can conclude much at all ultimately).
Question: Here on slashdot, it's assumed that Vista is shit, worse than cancer, etc. Do you accept Vista will become just as dominant as XP? If so, why?
I got a feeling you're going to say "Because MS forces it down the throats of the retailers", but I don't buy that. How so? Is there any (recent) evidence? You all equally claim Linux is ready for the desktop, and at the end of the day it's free too, so why oh why is Windows 95% dominant?
I'm not trolling, I'm asking. To me it doesn't add up.
Windows 7 will be out then.
I'm not sure I agree with your assumption Windows has millions of security exploits. From the millions you think there are, can you provide just one perhaps? .Net binaries aren't quick to load indeed (compared to natively coded apps anyway), and typically take up quite a chunk of memory once loaded (depending on what you've got available in fact). But neither characteristics are that important to be honest, as managed .Net code once loaded runs pretty darn fast. Case in point, they re-coded Quake 2 with .Net, and actually in areas it ran faster than the native code.
There's nothing wrong with native code, and it's all about choosing the right tool for the job of course, but managed code takes so much hassle out of developing business solutions at least, why go back to managing memory again? It's the same view that C++ programmers would take with assembly-language - there are cases where you'd want to, but other than that, why?
I don't see how clicking Allow is any more annoying than entering the su password every time you do an admin task, which in that respect was my point.
Again, if you think UAC is just a marketing gimmick, then really, ffs, try reading about it or actually use Vista long enough to form a useful opinion. It's a nicer version of su, thus is you find UAC annoying, you will by definition find su even more annoying.
Blindly modding troll without some kind of rebuttal makes yourself look stupid, and pretty much helps my post look stronger in this instance.
I smoke karma for breakfast.
It makes Windows more secure than *nix (i.e Vista is the only OS in the world where even root != root), and is less irritating than su (you don't need to type password every time, assuming you are "root").
Read about it. Try it. It works ok in practise. If you really hate the idea of not being root always and forever, it's 5 clicks to turn it off.
Ok, in IT, there's essentially two paradigms. Microsoft and !Microsoft (which that alone is a sign on how succesfull MS are).
The !Microsoft oriented people seem to have a lot more distaste for Microsoft stuff than the other way round, and article postings such as this one is evidence of that. Being, let's say, heavily based in Microsoft, I have tried and indeed on occasion promote OSS tech over MS tech sometimes, and the same goes for my colleagues. Every time I've asked someone bad-mouthing MS stuff how much time they've given to Vista for instance, and the response is along the lines of "fuck off n00b".
Now, I don't think for a minute that if Microsoft could wave a magic wand and have OSS disappear they wouldn't (no matter how expensive that wand might be), but you all miss a trick here. For Microsoft people, this war isn't about religion, it's ultimately about money. That means any anti-Linux propaganda they may (or may not) push out is calculated with a cool head.
On slashdot, anti-microsoft propaganda is often pure bitching and rabid foaming at the mouth by some obscure geek sat at home with an opinion the rest of the world doesn't care about. Sometimes you guys have a point, let's not pretend it's all ranting (not even nearly), but you must realise, school-ground article submissions like this one only serve to make you look like kids, and very unprofessional. That image sticks, and spreads too - all of which is a shame BECAUSE FOSS projects genuinely have thier own niche in the IT universe.
Remember, IT isn't religion, it's a profession, a skill, a choice, whatever. Microsoft for all you bash them, in my opinion look far more organised and professional than the anti-Microsoft people seeking at all costs and turns, to bash and tarnish them. And Microsoft are winning already; just keep checking that MSFT ticker.
Bring the mod points, this is an unpopular opinion I know, but to quote a cliché - "I've got karma to burn"
1. No, Microsoft stock is doing just fine, despite the Vista failure/disaster you keep harping on about as a sinking ship. Take a look at how bad MSFT stock has tanked in the last 12 months - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=1y
.Net if it can run on Windows. There's some cross-over, but not much. Additionally, Java probably is more popular, but only because it had a 10 year head-start. .Net is a superb platform (for Win systems at least), I challenge you to try and spin that one.
.Net tech is healthy thanks. A quick look on monster.com shows more or less the same results for .net and java positions.
2. I can run 12 year old software in Vista without modification. Can you run a 12 year old binary in Linux and have it still work? Unlikely. Most binary drivers break with a simple kernel upgrade.
3a. Link? In my experience people choose php because frankly its piss easy, Java because its cross platform, and
3b. Developer popularity around
4. Spread like wildfire for home users? I don't call 0.6% of desktops spreading like wildfire. Apple have the most to take from Microsoft in this area. What games runs on Linux? Not many. Linux is great if it does all you want already, but in the home the software needs to run anything and everything, which Linux doesn't.
Proprietary code is here to stay. So is OOS. Learn to deal with it.
Haha! Microsoft will surely die now, what with all these companies choosing Windows XP instead of Vista!
Wait a minute....
You're right, it sounds like a troll.
I'm sure I speak for most IT professionals when I say when something comes along that's better for the particular job than Windows is, we'll switch eventually. This isn't religion, just practical and professional common-sense.
Until that day, I don't think Windows is that bad to be honest. Having said that, I'd add that competition is healthy and so is diversity, but removing Windows won't achieve anything.
The French have proved conventional contact-rail trains are more than capable of matching current Maglev trains....
World records:
TGV: 574.8 Kph
JR Maglev MLX01: 581 Kph
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6521295.stm
That's a whole 6-7 kph difference between the technology now and of the future.
That and a huge magnet.
I see the blindly anti-Microsoft idiots are awake today then. The GP was completely lying about UAC - it works by design, end of story. If you see UAC popup too often it is because a badly written app is trying to do stuff it shouldn't.
Imagine if you will an application for linux that auto-edits the xorg.conf file. In Linux it would simply fail unless run directly as root or run after a su. In Vista, UAC would kick in automatically asking for priveledge elevation rather than automatically denying it - and that's when logged in as 'root' - more secure than Linux if you ask me, which for an equivalent level credential will just grant full access without thinking twice.
Users know when the screen goes dark and the "A program wants to change your computer" box comes up, their computer is about to have something changed. They can either click yes or no. I'm sorry but UAC works, and it works well IMO - it's just a shame there's so many apps used to Admin level rights without even asking for it; that's the true problem.
Office Benchmarks? WTF? So slashdotters, if you're a hardened copy+paster, XP SP3 appears to be the way forward for you.
Any chance of a real benchmark? Say gaming performance, disk performance, memory utilisation......I dunno, anything more useful than how many word documents I can spell-check simultaneously.
Actually, it's the whole business/enterprise functionality that most slashdotters either don't know about or conveniently choose to overlook.
Active Directory + Group Policy Management (server and client side) is the most single integrated solution from client to server that exists. There may other systems that reproduce similar functionality (like samba for instance), but nothing exists as an integrated top-to-bottom solution like Windows AD.
The only other system that came close (and some would argue was better) is Novell Netware, but that doesn't really exist any more.
Not at all. My point was you can make Vista use less memory, cpu and disk i/o but the gains are small/none-at-all/negative (depending on your point of view), hence they're enabled by default.
I agree which is why I keep all the services switched on, but it's one reason why I've noticed people say Vista is "slow" (quote marks deliberate) - hard-disc thrashing and high memory usage. My point was that you can get Vista to behave more or less like XP by turning these things off, although you lose their benefit. Keeping these services on ups CPU cycles and memory, even if the machine is ultimately faster in the long-run.
Do some research and you'll find you don't need a service pack to tune Vista:
Turn off: Volume Shadow Copy (files won't be versioned automatically any more), indexing service (rapid searching won't work any more), and SuperFetch (apps wont be pre-loaded and so will start slower, but you'll have more "free memory" on average - a debatable benefit anyway).
You'll notice XP levels of disc activity (barely any) and lot's more free memory. That's because Vista's not doing anything. Personally, I like to be able to search instantly, have apps load instantly, and have my critical files backed up transparently; so I don't mind the "bloat".
Anyway, if you actually know how Windows works, you'll know what you don't want running and what you do. Turn off the stuff you don't want, but most people are fine with the defaults even if it means using more resources.