I have to be honest - I think a lot of the outstanding bugs are related to Microsoft's focus on backwards compatibility, which I feel is unnecessary and holds back Windows development. In a way, I'm glad a lot of things broke in Vista - because in the end, a lot of things are only breaking because there are some terrible coding practices at work out there.
One entry on Raymond Chen's blog (which is a goldmine for the weird quirky things that some programs expect Windows to handle) explained a situation where one program sent keystrokes to Windows to bring up a specific feature - so when Microsoft changed it's location, the whole thing broke down - and the company who did it was big enough that Microsoft implemented something that would intercept those keystrokes for that program only, and then bring up the feature anyway. Crazy.
In the end, while Linux and Apple can afford to break things a little every now and then to consistently improve, Microsoft set themselves up for a massive fall because they spent so long trying to make everything work before that now they aren't trying as hard, everyone sees it as a failure.
A lot of people assumed it wasn't because the testing was done on Win2k, but Microsoft never confirmed it. In fact, the article states they were very hesitant to do just that:
As recently as last Friday, Microsoft hedged in answering questions about whether XP and Vista could be attacked in the same way [...] Yesterday, however, Microsoft responded to further questions and acknowledged that Windows XP is vulnerable So, in light of them actually admitting they're at fault, why wouldn't you trust it?
I don't really see those two sentences as being unable to co-exist - even reasonable people who have an interest in something will naturally lean towards the explanation that fits their current likes/dislikes more, and it only follows from that on Slashdot people are more likely to assume that MS are playing unfair than any other explanation than can be provided.
I don't 'follow Twitter around', I respond to people who post gross inaccuracies regarding things I know about (usually Microsoft), or to posts that I can provide some information on, or sometimes just for fun. It really depends on my mood.
If that looks like I'm following Twitter around, it's more of a reflection on his posting habits than mine, I'm afraid.
So, that's now out of the way. Are you going to respond to my point, or are you content to keep talking crap?
I like to think that people on the site have become more reasonable, and the comments that are modded down are generally misinformed, paranoid, baseless rants about 'M$'.
But hey, you know, each to their own. I'm sure your explanation plays better to the crowd here. It's nice the way that using weasel words like "I suspect" makes you immune to having to prove anything though, eh?
So, you provide 'proof', I debunk your 'proof', as a counter-argument you offer me... nothing, and then call me mentally unstable.
That is an absolute riot.
I call you twitter because you are twitter. You even have a link to your journal under your name. Well, you're either twitter or you're so completely obsessed with him that you emulate his writing style, reply to posts meant for him, and live in the same city, which would make you calling anyone 'mentally unstable' even more hilarious than it already is.
Oh, and I forgot the old '1 in 5 windoze lol' thing that you do, where they don't say Windows machines they say computers.
There have been other articles talking about the role of cracked Linux machines in botnet use but I'm sure you've read them, you just like to forget that they exist.
M$'s assertion of 2/3rds Hmm, once again you're not bothering with the full story here.
Microsoft supply a Malicious Software Removal Tool. You can run this once to do exactly what it says on the tin. Microsoft found that two thirds of people who ran the tool found malicious software.
Considering that people are only likely to run the tool when they think they're infected, I'm surprised that number isn't higher.
When Vista was installed, it asked you whether you wanted to automatically download and apply updates, some of which require a restart. You said yes. Now, you're complaining that Vista automatically downloads and installs your updates, some of which require a restart.
User accounts controls have no way to add program users use everyday. Your terrible grammar makes this nearly impossible to answer - I assume you mean that you can't set UAC to allow you to run something as admin permanently. Why something would need admin access every single day I'm not sure (I'm going to guess a poorly written program) - but if you're making system changes every single day and you're the admin, then you can turn UAC off just for yourself and nobody else.
Windows defender doesn't care if yor using another virus guard it demands to be updated. Because Windows Defender isn't an antivirus.
Hardware in back water hick towns are mostly software controlled fake ware which Vista refuses to run. Examples?
Vista seizes the computer you will not be allowed to do any work what so ever until it's back ground processes which are running in normal mode are done. Um, no, that doesn't happen at all.
MS can not even honestly compare Vista with Windows XP with all patches side by side and show Vista is more secure. And that notion is laughed out by Ars Technica.
Then there is aero the most useless program i ever had crash on me daily. Aero isn't a program.
then there is the fact Ctrl alt del keys sequence is now treated as a request not a fact to stop an irritant program. Ctrl-Alt-Delete operates in the same way as under XP.
Oh and did you notice the Vista PR department stopped trying to dis Linux. Now they are trying to litigate FUD of owning various patents they refuse to show the public at large what they are. SCO tried this ploy too. They're not litigating, so your complaint is "Microsoft stopped attacking Linux. HOW DARE THEY?!!?!?" Nice.
Then there is the H-1B Visa workers that are indentured servants to MS unable to apply at Google or other tech companies. All because ms doesn't want to pay the salaries US workers demand after going into debt through overpriced colleges of America. Citation? I've heard horror stories about H1-B workers at IBM but not Microsoft, like here.
Then there is the fact they will not play fair in the markets using exclusive contracts to lock out competitors. ( can you buy Linux on a store shelf now?) Hasn't happened for years. (Yes.)
then there is the fact MS is going to sell a version of vista that works on lesser PCs. So even the company that produced it has lost faith in the product. Microsoft are releasing a new version of Vista... so they've lost faith in Vista. Awesome.
I was an investor in MS stock now i will make sure my investments have nothing to do with them! I lost ~ 500 USD due to MS not wanting to play fair in the international markets. I divested and will not recommend their stock to any one! As the rest of your post has been fairly shambolic, I'm going to take this little gem with a pinch of salt too.
I think you missed the point. I can google "Flamingo" and "problems" and get over a million results - does this mean a million people are having problems with their flamingo?
Two words sum this up:
consumers won If consumers got what they wanted at your expense, it does seem fairly logical that you buggered the whole thing up.
Think what you want, but the laws, while varied, do exist. This was covered before on/. but as usual here people only believe what suits their own interests and nothing of reality. I'm going to have to agree.
What gets me is everyone here is arguing legality, but nobody actually thinks that might just not be polite to take something without asking or paying for it. People are going incredible lengths to justify legally being plain rude.
Seeing as JK hasn't commented on tax benefits, and the BBC didn't ask about tax benefits, and neither you nor 'Axcess News' have brought any proof of your claim, I don't think you've enlightened me on anything.
How hard is it for people to assume that a good deed is being done because it's a good deed?
There's a lot of misinformed whining going on in this topic, but you took the cake.
If you'd bothered to read any of the backstory, you'd actually understand why this is happening. However, apparently you need someone to force-feed you knowledge before you open your mouth so here it is.
JK is not suing for more money for her, she is going to give it to charity. This is because she was intending on releasing this exact same book and donating the proceeds to charity as she has done on several occasions before. She asked the Lexicon guys to either not publish or donate a portion of their proceeds to charity, but they refused. Considering the lexicon contains information that she gave them, free of charge, for them to turn around and sell that on for pure profit for themselves is pretty shitty conduct, and for them to do so at the same time as her planning what will turn out to be an enormously generous charitable donation is absolutely outrageous.
So, she's not suing 'for more money', she's not suing because she's a 'greedy whore', she's suing because she's trying to do a good deed and is being undermined by people that she previously helped out.
Thanks for the link, allowed me to do some interesting investigation.
Apparently the offense in question was a kid sharing his Harry Potter book report via a P2P network (seemingly accidentally). However, it was Warner Bros who asked the kid's ISP to block his access as their 'system' for determining whether it was part of a movie torrent flagged it as illegal. Clearly it wasn't, but it sheds light on the incident.
JK had zero input in that, and there certainly was no 'going after some kid' on her part. That's probably why nobody remembers it in the fashion that you put it forward - because that's not what happened.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to be honest - I think a lot of the outstanding bugs are related to Microsoft's focus on backwards compatibility, which I feel is unnecessary and holds back Windows development. In a way, I'm glad a lot of things broke in Vista - because in the end, a lot of things are only breaking because there are some terrible coding practices at work out there.
One entry on Raymond Chen's blog (which is a goldmine for the weird quirky things that some programs expect Windows to handle) explained a situation where one program sent keystrokes to Windows to bring up a specific feature - so when Microsoft changed it's location, the whole thing broke down - and the company who did it was big enough that Microsoft implemented something that would intercept those keystrokes for that program only, and then bring up the feature anyway. Crazy.
In the end, while Linux and Apple can afford to break things a little every now and then to consistently improve, Microsoft set themselves up for a massive fall because they spent so long trying to make everything work before that now they aren't trying as hard, everyone sees it as a failure.
A lot of people assumed it wasn't because the testing was done on Win2k, but Microsoft never confirmed it. In fact, the article states they were very hesitant to do just that: As recently as last Friday, Microsoft hedged in answering questions about whether XP and Vista could be attacked in the same way [...] Yesterday, however, Microsoft responded to further questions and acknowledged that Windows XP is vulnerable So, in light of them actually admitting they're at fault, why wouldn't you trust it?
I don't really see those two sentences as being unable to co-exist - even reasonable people who have an interest in something will naturally lean towards the explanation that fits their current likes/dislikes more, and it only follows from that on Slashdot people are more likely to assume that MS are playing unfair than any other explanation than can be provided.
I'm not really sure what you meant to be honest.
I don't 'follow Twitter around', I respond to people who post gross inaccuracies regarding things I know about (usually Microsoft), or to posts that I can provide some information on, or sometimes just for fun. It really depends on my mood.
If that looks like I'm following Twitter around, it's more of a reflection on his posting habits than mine, I'm afraid.
So, that's now out of the way. Are you going to respond to my point, or are you content to keep talking crap?
I like to think that people on the site have become more reasonable, and the comments that are modded down are generally misinformed, paranoid, baseless rants about 'M$'.
But hey, you know, each to their own. I'm sure your explanation plays better to the crowd here. It's nice the way that using weasel words like "I suspect" makes you immune to having to prove anything though, eh?
You are accusing me of being mentally unstable?
So, you provide 'proof', I debunk your 'proof', as a counter-argument you offer me... nothing, and then call me mentally unstable.
That is an absolute riot.
I call you twitter because you are twitter. You even have a link to your journal under your name. Well, you're either twitter or you're so completely obsessed with him that you emulate his writing style, reply to posts meant for him, and live in the same city, which would make you calling anyone 'mentally unstable' even more hilarious than it already is.
Not at all - running the tool is optional, just the download is automatic.
Oh, and I forgot the old '1 in 5 windoze lol' thing that you do, where they don't say Windows machines they say computers.
There have been other articles talking about the role of cracked Linux machines in botnet use but I'm sure you've read them, you just like to forget that they exist.
So, where was that proof again?
Microsoft supply a Malicious Software Removal Tool. You can run this once to do exactly what it says on the tin. Microsoft found that two thirds of people who ran the tool found malicious software.
Considering that people are only likely to run the tool when they think they're infected, I'm surprised that number isn't higher.
There always has to be one elitist snobby Mac comment in any article, and you just nailed it.
Hopefully that will put off anybody else who decides to pipe in.
When Vista was installed, it asked you whether you wanted to automatically download and apply updates, some of which require a restart. You said yes. Now, you're complaining that Vista automatically downloads and installs your updates, some of which require a restart.
Mmhmm.
I said I was gay, not stupid!
Depends on the day ;)
On the other hand, I'm gay, love cookies and taking out the trash leaves me with a deep-seated sense of accomplishment.
Now I know where it all went wrong!
I also don't work for Microsoft.
Erris is twitter, and he is both a troll and a liar, and I *have* ritually disproved all of his points at length.
Better for you?
I think you missed the point. I can google "Flamingo" and "problems" and get over a million results - does this mean a million people are having problems with their flamingo?
For a case in point, please see Peter Gutmann.
What gets me is everyone here is arguing legality, but nobody actually thinks that might just not be polite to take something without asking or paying for it. People are going incredible lengths to justify legally being plain rude.
Seeing as JK hasn't commented on tax benefits, and the BBC didn't ask about tax benefits, and neither you nor 'Axcess News' have brought any proof of your claim, I don't think you've enlightened me on anything.
How hard is it for people to assume that a good deed is being done because it's a good deed?
Some valid pedantry, there.
Replace "that exact book" with "a very similar book", but my point still stands.
There's a lot of misinformed whining going on in this topic, but you took the cake.
If you'd bothered to read any of the backstory, you'd actually understand why this is happening. However, apparently you need someone to force-feed you knowledge before you open your mouth so here it is.
JK is not suing for more money for her, she is going to give it to charity. This is because she was intending on releasing this exact same book and donating the proceeds to charity as she has done on several occasions before. She asked the Lexicon guys to either not publish or donate a portion of their proceeds to charity, but they refused. Considering the lexicon contains information that she gave them, free of charge, for them to turn around and sell that on for pure profit for themselves is pretty shitty conduct, and for them to do so at the same time as her planning what will turn out to be an enormously generous charitable donation is absolutely outrageous.
So, she's not suing 'for more money', she's not suing because she's a 'greedy whore', she's suing because she's trying to do a good deed and is being undermined by people that she previously helped out.
Is that enough information for you?
Thanks for the link, allowed me to do some interesting investigation.
Apparently the offense in question was a kid sharing his Harry Potter book report via a P2P network (seemingly accidentally). However, it was Warner Bros who asked the kid's ISP to block his access as their 'system' for determining whether it was part of a movie torrent flagged it as illegal. Clearly it wasn't, but it sheds light on the incident.
JK had zero input in that, and there certainly was no 'going after some kid' on her part. That's probably why nobody remembers it in the fashion that you put it forward - because that's not what happened.
Consider this a learning experience.