Bill Gates Memo: Clean Up Windows XP!

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by blackpeter, Jan 18, 2002.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
  2. macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #2
    Oh ****!

    I was hoping Bill would keep himself all bound up in his ego. I certainly hope Steve hasn't wasted the oppertunity of M$'s security inferiority because M$ is about to adress it. I doubt that they'll get it done THIS CENTURY though.:D
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
  4. macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Scandinavia
    #5
    M$ security?????????

    harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr harr........

    'nuff said
     
  6. Six
    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    #6
    So their security stuff training will last them what...a good month? Sure they may get a few bugs out of XP, but there's always gonna be a lot of flaws.. especially viruses. Always remember: More viruses come out for window$ in a week, than have ever exsisted for the mac.
     
  7. macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #7
    Re: M$ security?????????

    you doing okay there?:(
     
  8. macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #8
    "Seeking to restore Microsoft's tarnished reputation for developing secure and reliable software, Microsoft's chairman, Bill Gates, distributed a companywide memo calling on employees to place increased priority on making the company's products "trustworthy." "

    I just laughed hard enough to make my drink come outa my nose... It is gonna take a hellofa lotta work to make anything m$ puts out 'trustworthy'. I wouldn't trust anything they put out any more then the chances of me getting within 10' of old billy gates with a cream pie (remember that event?)

    Does anyone happen to know if there are any security holes in the Mac OS??? I can't remember hearing of any. I believe there was a time that the Navy swapped all of their servers with Mac's because they were more secure then their pc counterparts (even if they cost a bit more).

    I dream of the day we can eliminate the pc servers at work and replace them with Mac servers. I added the numbers up. If we went with a G4 QuickSilver server, with the unlimited Server X, and a TB FireWire RAID configuration, it would cost less then 1/2 of what the company spent on the latest IBM server (nicknamed the terrible-Byte server). That thing has been a problem since day one. After over a year, we are almost to the point where it is usable. The main issue has been file corruption when it gets backed up. We ended up attaching a B&W G3 to the tape system and backing up that way (takes a weekend to do the backup but we don't get any damaged resource forks).

    Maybe one day we will have a G4 server, until then, we just pray that IBM can get their act together and make this thing work properly.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    #9
    OS 9.x vs OS X (Server) security

    Well, I believe it was the Army that replaced all their web servers with G4's running Web Star on OS 9. The reason for this was because MacOS 9 has no command line and therefore almost impossible to hack. Sure, virii exist but they are very few.
    Now, OS X & OS X Server raise a whole new slough of security issues because it's essentially FreeBSD and has command line/remote access. It has the same security features of BSD and some new ones that Apple has thrown into the Darwin layer, but there is a command line and that means there are ways for a determined hacker to get in.
    Also, since BSD is a UNIX derivative, it becomes a bit of a playground for UNIX and Linux hackers. Apple is touting the security of OS X and that is tantamount to inviting hackers to mess around with OS X run networks. Hopefully Apple's security claims live up to the challenge.
    I have no fear that NT and XP hackers will be dumbfounded by the UNIX aspect of OS X and I doubt that dedicated M$ hackers would even know how to write scripts or executables that could pierce the armor that is BSD/Darwin/OS X. Now the Linux and UNIX geeks are going to be the real "problem". I quote problem becuase these are just the type of people who are going to push the limits of security in OS X and they are also the type of people who are going to make Apple aware of any chinks in the armor, making OS X more secure and stable as time goes on.
    Imagine someone thinking they could write a virus for OS X in VBscript!
    As for knocking IBM servers. Hrm. Well. At my last job, the compnany was running several IBM AS390/400 (?) servers and serving Lotus Notes to about 2 dozen offices around the world. Even the Macs had access to remote file servers scattered across the world. IBM makes some serious servers as do Sun and SGI. Heck, even a Dell running FreeBSD or Linux makes for a good server environment and they all play nice with OS X and even with OS 9 to a certain extent. It's the Compaqs and hacked together Gateway boxes serving Exchange Server on Win2K where you really run into some serious harware problems.
    I know I know, who the heck is going to make a server out of a Gateway, but I've seen it and it's not pretty!
    So, OS X running on some serious G4 servers with RAIDs, some serious backup and redundant power supplies could be a very good, scalable server environment. Heck, even a Dell based server running Darwin for x86 could be a very secure, stable and scalable server environment.
    Basically, it's a very exciting time to be a Mac user!
     
  10. macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #10
    The main problem with the IBM server is they mixed technologies on it. The backup was SCSI but the hard drives were fiber. Every time a backup set runs on it, and then restored, close to 100 files get their resource forks stripped off of them. While this might not be a problem with all ms files, it is a problem when they are a mix of Illustrator, PhotoShop and Quark. These are files that are critical. IBM refused to believe us when we told them about the problem, and it has taken them well over a year before they agreed to give us all SCSI (as we asked for originally).

    I would never suggest that someone gets an IBM server, considering our track record on this one.

    If you want a reliable, expandable, easy to maintain server, get one made by Apple. You can get a stack of VST FireWire hard drives (large red ones) along with their RAID software and have a reliable storage solution. There are many backup systems out there. Most of them are SCSI, but some are FireWire as well. Use Retrospect and you have rock solid backups too.
     
  11. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002
    #11
    XP SUCKS

    I just removed XP Pro from my laptop......went back to Win2000

    XP is slow, bloated, full of security holes.

    IMHO
     
  12. macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
  13. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002
    #13
    Seems like there is a problem with web browsing. I kept noticing that when I would try to go to a URL the browser would redirect to another website. (strange).

    Also, I don't like it when an OS tries to "make me do things" like wanting me to sign up for M$ pa$$port....right, like I want to give M$ all my personal information, I don't think so.

    Plus it is so much slower than Win 2000 in spite of M$ claims.
     
  14. macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
  15. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002

Share This Page