windows vista

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Grim... wrote:If they want to continue doing the same thing, then they won't need Vista. I think that's fair enough.
Aha! But they will!

Thats the real catch that ruins the argument. Microsoft stops supporting OS's faster and faster, precisely to ensure that you DO need the latest OS just to continue doing the same thing. For example, if you want security, you can't stay on Windows 2000! XP already has firewalls, and security fixes that Microsoft refuses to backport to Win2k. Worse, soon it won't even get security updates, so the OS will itself be a risk to continue using on the internet.

That means that you have to upgrade just to keep doing what you already do. Not just a minor upgrade either: Many systems will have to be replaced in whole to upgrade to the requirements of Vista.
Grim... wrote:Xbox 360? Who's that made by, then?
Microsoft. Your point was that gamers don't complain about cost or upgrading, and its simply a convenient example. I already cited Photoshop as another program that people complained about upgrading for, but that wasn't about games.
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

(Off topic-ish)
The bashing Microsoft gets for poor security really annoys me.
If you brought a Mondeo from Ford, would you expect them to send a mechanic out every time they make better door locks? Hell no! And if someone smashes your window and steals your car, do you blame Ford? Hell no!
Why does no-one really blame the people who start the trouble?

(Back on topic)
I'm still running a NT server, and keep it secure (I hope) with good (free) third-party applications. I agree with you that MS could do more to help out it's existing customers, but it already does far, far more than pretty much any other company around, especially considering that 80% of people stole their product in the first place.
Plus, maybe they'll continue supporting XP for a good while after Vista comes out (okay, long shot, but you never know).

To be honest, I'm looking forward to getting hold of Vista - I like coolness, and firmly believe that OS's should act more like they do in films, with groovy visual effects and stuff.

<edit>I'm not accusing you of bashing MS for poor security, just people in general, but it reads like I am - sorry</edit>
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

Roja wrote:
Grim... wrote:Xbox 360? Who's that made by, then?
Microsoft. Your point was that gamers don't complain about cost or upgrading, and its simply a convenient example.
Have you got a link? I'd be quite interested to read that. I promise not to start posting about it ;)
Last edited by Grim... on Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Official policy for support used to be all versions outside of two major versions back lose support. The support was extended for Win95/98, as many know though, but eventually those fell too..
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

So Windows should currently be supporting 2k and XP?

Or XP Home and XP Pro?
User avatar
John Cartwright
Site Admin
Posts: 11470
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:10 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by John Cartwright »

To be honest I absolutely love the way microsoft can fly through different operating systems. Computer world years can not be compared to very many industries when considering how far technology has been progressing over the years. 10 years ago -- a dual core what?. Now we have the possibilities of quad cores.. and we need a strong operating system to catch up, and support (well) new technology. It may seem like a lot of system rescources.. but heck, 1 gig of RAM I've had in my last 2 computers.. my next computer loaded up with vista will have a couple gigz in there :P. Although I do see dificulties of the majority of users porting over to vista from xp/2000 because of the computer upgrades, that is unfortunante, but hardware costs are becomming increasing lower and lower. My last computer I bought for 1800 over a year ago, which can now be bought for ~900$. Insanity. My point being, the times are changing and as technology evolves, so must our applications and support.

+1 M$
User avatar
shiznatix
DevNet Master
Posts: 2745
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Contact:

Post by shiznatix »

i wish i was rich like you obviously are :cry:
pilau
Forum Regular
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Israel

Post by pilau »

I am using WinXP Pro. I have never updated this OS from the WindowsUpdate website, apart from Service Pack 1. (I'll never install #2. Too many irritating limitations)
I had never had anyone brake into my computer. So basically I'm good with no MS security updates.
Just for the fact of that.

I said that to show you an example of how I can manage without using MS updates - that means I could still use XP when Vista would be celebrating on any computer around me. Do you get my drift?

You dont have to upgrade to Vista, if you dont really need to. Fair and square.
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

pilau wrote:I had never had anyone brake into my computer. So basically I'm good with no MS security updates.
No spyware or nothing? Are you sure?
pilau
Forum Regular
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Israel

Post by pilau »

First and foremost, I use FireFox.
And when I need IE, or when I have any spyware or malware on my PC, I fire up SpySweeper.
I'm a master at using various removal tools to get those little software crackers off my PC.

But what I said was that no-one has ever managed to brake into my computer.
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

Everyone blames IE for spyware, but we all know it comes from downloading dodgy pr0n torrents... ;)
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Grim... wrote:(Off topic-ish)The bashing Microsoft gets for poor security really annoys me.
Then tell them to program better and be more responsible in handling security issues.

They've earned that criticism. When the CEO comes out and says that has not only been a problem, but that they need to invest 6 months doing nothing but security - you know there is a legitimate issue.

They admit it, and the people (like me!) that are tasked with trying to secure it are understandably tired of an insecure OS.
Grim... wrote: If you brought a Mondeo from Ford, would you expect them to send a mechanic out every time they make better door locks? Hell no! And if someone smashes your window and steals your car, do you blame Ford? Hell no!
Why does no-one really blame the people who start the trouble?
You know what the difference is between cars and software?

Car manufacturers can be held liable for product defects, so they do it right the first time. Thats not true for software.

As a result, you won't see Microsoft support windows 2000, even though businesses pay MILLIONS a year to run it right now. As a result, you won't see Microsoft backport the firewall from XP to 2k, despite the underlying OS completely supporting it. Why should they? They can't be sued, unlike car manufacturers.

The day that I can sue Microsoft for making an insecure OS is the day you can fairly make this analogy. Until then, they are stuck with a fair criticism that even THEY agree is largely true.
Grim... wrote: (Back on topic)
I'm still running a NT server, and keep it secure (I hope) with good (free) third-party applications. I agree with you that MS could do more to help out it's existing customers, but it already does far, far more than pretty much any other company around, especially considering that 80% of people stole their product in the first place.
Not at all true. They do far, far less than pretty much any other company. Compare it with the legacy support for Suse Linux (years longer), or MacOS, or BeOS, when it was still around.

They are by far trailing the pack when it comes to support, and for good reason: They don't have to. They are a monopoly, they can't be sued for negligent programming, and they make money by encouraging people to upgrade.
Grim... wrote:<edit>I'm not accusing you of bashing MS for poor security, just people in general, but it reads like I am - sorry</edit>
No problem at all. I absolutely do, and its 100% fair for me to do it. When you restructure your entire company to emphasize security, clearly something wasn't being done right.
Grim... wrote:You dont have to upgrade to Vista, if you dont really need to. Fair and square.
"The average unpatched Windows PC lasts less than 20 minutes on the Internet before it's compromised" - I'd call that completely unacceptable.

You definitely need to keep patched to remain safe, and as soon as they stop offering patches, that means you must upgrade.
Grim... wrote:My point being, the times are changing and as technology evolves, so must our applications and support.
And I'm fine with that: For new applications. But the monopolist isn't simply doing that. Its also ensuring that you must upgrade to the latest version of the OS by ending support and patching for older OS'es that they coded insecurely.

"Well, its fair if Ford only charges more for new cars.", and then find out that Ford uses weak steel in the engine bay to ensure that cars only last 5 years. Not very fair then, right?
Grim... wrote:Official policy for support used to be all versions outside of two major versions back lose support.
Mainstream support for Windows 2000 ended 6/30/2005. Mainstream support for Windows XP ends 12/31/2006. The launch of Vista is expected in the third quarter of 2006.

This means that Vista will be the only desktop OS with Mainstream support after 12/31/2006. Get ready to upgrade if you want to keep doing the same thing you do today (securely).

Its not fair in any industry to require people to pay for a substantial upgrade just to keep doing the same thing securely. At least offer updates seperately, so we have the choice.
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

Hang on, I didn't say those last two things.

Vauxhall (GM) got some hassle a few years back (okay, probably more like 10ish) for switching to a paint that causes their cars to rust earlier. No-one really kicked up about that, they just stopped buying Vauxhalls.
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

Roja wrote: "The average unpatched Windows PC lasts less than 20 minutes on the Internet before it's compromised" - I'd call that completely unacceptable.
So would I, but for totally different reasons. Why does nobody blame the people doing the compromising?
If Mac OS was the number one system, and it used the most popular browser, within a year it would become the 20 minute target.
As fast as people work to secure systems, wankers are working to get into them.
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Grim... wrote:If Mac OS was the number one system, and it used the most popular browser, within a year it would become the 20 minute target.
This is an extremely common misconception.

Apache is the number one webserver.

IIS gets three times more exploits and vulnerabilities every year.

Marketshare != insecurity.
Post Reply