Microsoft Posts 'PC vs. Mac' Section to Windows 7 Website

[MorphingDragon]

Well most people are using terminal services, and virtually all of them are touching servers.

...and the sky hasn't fallen.

No but thousands if not millions of dollars in time and money are wasted every year because admins can't follow recommendations.
SO to the practice managers around the world the sky is falling.

Perhaps links for the Microsoft and RHEL docs would be helpful too. I'd like to see the context (since most security experts discourage running SSH or any other management protocol on the Internet links of a production server - it would make since that they suggest disabling RDP as well).

How can I link to a BOOK that I was given to me at the training courses?

 

[-hh]

***Applause***

A summary which brilliantly encapsulates the current state-of-affairs.

As the Apologist Agenda is merely to attempt to poison the thread, and distract from the news item.

The news item (for those who forgot it, due to this burial attempt) was Microsoft's response from real or perceived loss of share/profits from Apple, in the form of this website.

Time will tell if this is merely a rear guard action to defend against the inevitable.

In regard to Windows font rendering, it remains...

...yes, a distraction from this news item.


In the meantime, roughly 68% of Windows customers have stuck with XP, having adopted neither Vista or Win7 so far...

...whereas in contrast, roughly 85% of Mac customers are running OS X 10.5 or 10.6, both of which are three years or younger.




-hh

 

[iEdd]

In the meantime, roughly 68% of Windows customers have stuck with XP, having adopted neither Vista or Win7 so far...

In my experience, with Mac OS X, you just grab the latest update/upgrade ASAP and it works. It's generally better than the previous version in every way, with a couple of bugs that quickly get ironed out. (Except of course, the big change like OS9-OS10, but the transition was smoothed by dual booting and classic emulation.)

Windows is a different story. You have to wait and see how the new release pans out, you have to research what's incompatible or buggy. I'm guessing those 68% of Windows users learned their mistakes by jumping to Windows ME some years before. I'd also hazard a guess that the average mum and dad users who buy a cheap Windows box will just adopt the attitude that if it's working fine, why change it?

I still use XP Pro SP3. Vista was a joke and almost everything I get for uni work has the "not compatible with Vista" disclaimer, and most programs I come across still recommend XP.

 

[AidenShaw]

How can I link to a BOOK that I was given to me at the training courses?

How can we understand the context if you quote one sentence from a BOOK that we cannot see?

But, if I Yahoo! for "best practices server internet management" I see this white paper from Cisco Cisco SAFE Reference Guide which discusses in-band and out-of-band network security issues, and how to protect servers from attacks.

And the Cisco white paper pretty clearly says that in-band management is to be avoided whenever possible - whatever the operating system (even for IOS).

Therefore, I cannot accept your statement that "Microsoft and RedHat say not to use terminal services" without understanding the wider context of the quotes from Microsoft and RedHat. They may merely be reflections of industry-wide best practices, not damning the terminal services protocol as you seem to imply. ("Best practices" also damn SSH, IPSEC and any other protocol.)

By the way, where I work the IT policy is to require an air gap between any in-band network and any out-of-band network. I need to have an extra PC in my office connected to a separate physical network switch ("air gap") to connect to out-of-band management services. VPN is not allowed, nor dual-homing - it must be an air gap.

Disclaimer: IT policy considers a VLAN on an IT-managed switch to be "air-gapped" from other VLANs. It means I still need a separate PC and separate network connection in my office - even though both network connections go to the same VLAN-capable network switch. Packets on one RJ45 copper connection cannot get to the network on the other RJ45 copper connection. If you're familiar with IOS this will seem reasonable.

And again, most Windows users are using Terminal Services, and the sky hasn't fallen....

 

[DMann]

As the Apologist Agenda is merely to attempt to poison the thread, and distract from the news item.

You've spoken too soon.

Next, we'll be hearing a demand for ISBN numbers to be scanned and posted.

The news item (for those who forgot it, due to this burial attempt) was Microsoft's response from real or perceived loss of share/profits from Apple, in the form of this website.

Time will tell if this is merely a rear guard action to defend against the inevitable.

If history is of any indication, i.e. Shoe Circus/Seinfeld Ads, I'm a PC, Lap-top Hunters, etc., the inevitable is inevitable.

...yes, a distraction from this news item.

In the meantime, roughly 68% of Windows customers have stuck with XP, having adopted neither Vista or Win7 so far...

...whereas in contrast, roughly 85% of Mac customers are running OS X 10.5 or 10.6, both of which are three years or younger.

The XP sector will likely stagnate for some time, hence a significant portion of them use pirated copies.

Desperation calls for desperate measures, nonetheless.

 

[blunderboy]

If it actually was a joke - I'm not sure, since this isn't the first time that "OMG - Comic Sans MS" has come up. (Note that there was nothing in the recent thread to bring up Comic Sans, LagunaSol resurrected that red herring in a lame attempt to discredit my comments on the sub-pixel rendering issue.) I'm happy that you saw it as a silly comment, but it didn't look like Blunderboy took it as a joke.


Yes, as I said a few posts back "Anyway, thanks to you and MorphingDragon for bringing this up". It's always nice to have something more substantial than "Windows sucks" behind an argument.

I did—I used the emoticon after what I was saying. Kind of hard to convey that I took the comment for what it was when there's only text, but I did.

And yes, the font rendering on Windows...does not have good fidelity, which is one of the reasons why I dislike it. At larger point sizes, text tends to look jagged. It's one of those interface subtleties that makes Windows irritating, at least to me.

 

[MorphingDragon]

How can we understand the context if you quote one sentence from a BOOK that we cannot see?

Welcome to Academia.

I would take a picture, but thats both Illegal and I don't have a Camera. But both the chapters were dealing with enterprise security and they were both highlighted in their own way. So they were intended as a broad general statement.

And again, most Windows users are using Terminal Services, and the sky hasn't fallen....

Thats not the point, and most importantly a red herring. People can smoke pot/tobacco/whatever floats your boat, yet the sky isn't falling but that doesn't change the fact that it is detrimental to your health.

 

[AidenShaw]

Welcome to Academia.

I thought that referencing your sources in footnotes was important in "Academia"....

At least it is in my hemisphere....

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Don't forget the Windows patches that install every other day and ask you to restart! (Seriously, Microsoft doesn't keep sending out patches because Windows is more secure; it sends out packages because there are so many vulnerabilities and Microsoft has to run after them.)

You say you are tired of Windows fanboys on here. I'm neither since I use both. But I DO get sick of total BS like the above. You act like the Mac never asks you to restart. Bullcrap! It SHOULDN'T because it's Unix and therefore library based (unload/reload/voila), but because it's Apple it does anyway. Nearly all software updates from Apple require restarts so how is that different from Windows??? Worse yet, the SAME software on Windows by Apple (i.e. Safari updates) do *NOT* require a restart. How lame is that? Apple routinely supports updated software for XP (e.g. Safari) that is going nearly on a decade old yet they don't support even two OS versions ago with half the age on OSX (i.e. Tiger)

This isn't ragging on OSX. It's ragging on Apple because they run the company like Jobs' real name is Mr. Almighty and their bottom line is and has always been (with or without Jobs) to milk the regular user base for every last cent instead of lowering prices to increase the size of the user base instead. In fact, it's worse lately with Jobs because whereas a Mac used to be useful for much longer than a Windows machine, it's now down to <2 years support with Apple trying to FORCE you to keep buying more overpriced hardware by purposely building obsolescence in to the machines (e.g. release a new Mac Pro video card and then purposely make it not work with 2008 machines... mere 2 year old machines can't take a freaking new video card!?!?! WTF Steve!?? I knew you were greedy, but that is just beyond the pale man. It's too bad they didn't give Steve a new heart instead of a new liver because his is clearly missing). Look at the newer notebooks plus iphones, ipod touches, etc. (no removable batteries). Notice how newer OS updates exclude iOS devices that are only 3 years old. This is the future for Apple. That graphics card thing with the Mac Pro is 100% intentional. They don't even treat their "pro" users right anymore, let alone the average consumer. The future of Apple is that it "just works" until Steve says it's time to buy another one. Then it suddenly stops working.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I thought that referencing your sources in footnotes was important in "Academia"....

At least it is in my hemisphere....

I told you my source, its just extremely difficult and illegal to make it accessible to the Internet.

You're MSCE/MSITS aren't you? You should have a copy of the manual, unless you went to a "certification mill".

 

[DMann]

Welcome to Academia.

I would take a picture, but thats both Illegal and I don't have a Camera. But both the chapters were dealing with enterprise security and they were both highlighted in their own way. So they were intended as a broad general statement.

Thats not the point, and most importantly a red herring. People can smoke pot/tobacco/whatever floats your boat, yet the sky isn't falling but that doesn't change the fact that it is detrimental to your health.

Very good points, indeed - neither the act of using, nor abusing, will define potential levels of detriment.

The allegory of your sig, BTW, is spot on.

You say you are tired of Windows fanboys on here. I'm neither since I use both. But I DO get sick of total BS like the above. You act like the Mac never asks you to restart. Bullcrap! It SHOULDN'T because it's Unix and therefore library based (unload/reload/voila), but because it's Apple it does anyway. Nearly all software updates from Apple require restarts so how is that different from Windows??? Worse yet, the SAME software on Windows by Apple (i.e. Safari updates) do *NOT* require a restart. How lame is that? Apple routinely supports updated software for XP (e.g. Safari) that is going nearly on a decade old yet they don't support even two OS versions ago with half the age on OSX (i.e. Tiger)

Simply quit software update, and skip the restart - not so hard.

 

[MorphingDragon]

The allegory of your sig, BTW, is spot on.

My sig actually has a story attached to it.

 

[DMann]

My sig actually has a story attached to it.

Do continue...

 

[blunderboy]

You say you are tired of Windows fanboys on here. I'm neither since I use both. But I DO get sick of total BS like the above. You act like the Mac never asks you to restart. Bullcrap! It SHOULDN'T because it's Unix and therefore library based (unload/reload/voila), but because it's Apple it does anyway. Nearly all software updates from Apple require restarts so how is that different from Windows??? Worse yet, the SAME software on Windows by Apple (i.e. Safari updates) do *NOT* require a restart. How lame is that? Apple routinely supports updated software for XP (e.g. Safari) that is going nearly on a decade old yet they don't support even two OS versions ago with half the age on OSX (i.e. Tiger)

This isn't ragging on OSX. It's ragging on Apple because they run the company like Jobs' real name is Mr. Almighty and their bottom line is and has always been (with or without Jobs) to milk the regular user base for every last cent instead of lowering prices to increase the size of the user base instead. In fact, it's worse lately with Jobs because whereas a Mac used to be useful for much longer than a Windows machine, it's now down to <2 years support with Apple trying to FORCE you to keep buying more overpriced hardware by purposely building obsolescence in to the machines (e.g. release a new Mac Pro video card and then purposely make it not work with 2008 machines... mere 2 year old machines can't take a freaking new video card!?!?! WTF Steve!?? I knew you were greedy, but that is just beyond the pale man. It's too bad they didn't give Steve a new heart instead of a new liver because his is clearly missing). Look at the newer notebooks plus iphones, ipod touches, etc. (no removable batteries). Notice how newer OS updates exclude iOS devices that are only 3 years old. This is the future for Apple. That graphics card thing with the Mac Pro is 100% intentional. They don't even treat their "pro" users right anymore, let alone the average consumer. The future of Apple is that it "just works" until Steve says it's time to buy another one. Then it suddenly stops working.

I never said the Mac didn't ask me to restart. Please stop reading things into what I said. I said that with my experience with Windows 7, I had to restart quite a bit because of Windows patches on a system that shipped with less-than-current Windows Updates. And you can just tell Software Update to quit. It gives you the choice of installing whatever it is Apple wants you to install. Microsoft's updates are often automatic, and you cannot avoid restarting for that long. Also, the Apple updates make it very clear what you are installing; it's more difficult to check that with the Microsoft updates. I'm not saying you can't check what's in the MS updates, but the Apple process is clearer, at least to me. YMMV.

Apple's upgrade cycle is different from Microsoft's. Microsoft has a lot of enterprise customers who would be royally screwed if MS cut support for XP. The same thing happened with Win98, although mainstream apps for Win98 became a lot less common after about 2003 or so.

Safari is based on Webkit. Webkit is used throughout the Mac interface—for example, in its help files. I don't think it's quite the same as IE was in previous versions of Windows, but the underlying WebKit frameworks (not the browser, just the frameworks) are integral to Mac OS X. This is why Safari updates on the Mac require a restart. On Windows, they don't, because the WebKit framework is just a component of a 3rd-party application.

Regarding support for devices, how are Apple worse than your standard PC box maker? A lot of those can be considered disposable machines, so they don't even have to worry about that—they just go out and buy another Windows box, problem solved, landfills be damned.

 

[AidenShaw]

I said that with my experience with Windows 7, I had to restart quite a bit because of Windows patches on a system that shipped with less-than-current Windows Updates.

A valid point - but somewhat time-dependent.

If your system was loaded with a particular snapshot of Windows 7, if you first start it months later there will be lots of updates to download. It may take several update cycles to get the latest of everything.

It's a non-issue
-Steve

Sent from my Windows Mobile

And you can just tell Software Update to quit. It gives you the choice of installing whatever it is Apple wants you to install. Microsoft's updates are often automatic, and you cannot avoid restarting for that long.

Windows Update gives you the choice to ignore, download, or download and install updates. Just because you don't understand how to set your options isn't a Windows problem. You can tell Windows Update what you want, just like you can tell Software Update what you want.

 

[blunderboy]

A valid point - but somewhat time-dependent.

If your system was loaded with a particular snapshot of Windows 7, if you first start it months later there will be lots of updates to download. It may take several update cycles to get the latest of everything.

It's a non-issue
Sent from my Windows Mobile




Windows Update gives you the to ignore, download, or download and install updates. Just because you don't understand how to set your options isn't a Windows problem.

I think that was my problem. It had a certain image of Windows 7, and for days on end, it was downloading Windows updates that required that I restart. I think that Apple handles cumulative updates better than Microsoft—rather than downloading several updates at different points in time (prompting numerous restarts)—there is the combination updater. I updated a Mac I had from 10.5.0 to 10.5.8 via the combo updater. One or two restarts, not five or six, even though there were several updates between the Leopard that was on its install disc and the last point release.

It is a Windows problem, because the options aren't made as obvious as they are in Mac OS X. I was primarily referring to Windows 7; on XP, I did switch off automatic updates. Microsoft changed numerous things around in the interface, making it less intuitive. Microsoft has a tendency of tucking settings away in places that aren't delineated in a way that would be easily understandable. I'm not saying Apple is perfect at this—they're not. Apple, however, tend to be better at managing ease of use than Microsoft.

 

[DMann]

It is a Windows problem, because the options aren't made as obvious as they are in Mac OS X. I was primarily referring to Windows 7; on XP, I did switch off automatic updates. Microsoft changed numerous things around in the interface, making it less intuitive. Microsoft has a tendency of tucking settings away in places that aren't delineated in a way that would be easily understandable. I'm not saying Apple is perfect at this—they're not. Apple, however, tend to be better at managing ease of use than Microsoft.

The part of your post which has been conveniently overlooked, is whether or not there is an option to download, and then quit, saving the restart part for a more convenient time.

Your'e right, Apple is much more streamlined, intuitive, and sensible when it comes to performing tasks of any nature - things tend to be more clearly defined, and more thoughtfully presented, overall.

 

[AidenShaw]

I think that Apple handles cumulative updates better than Microsoft—rather than downloading several updates at different points in time (prompting numerous restarts)—there is the combination updater.

Apple and Microsoft have two different philosophies for updates.

Apple has occasional large point updates, with a combo update option.

Microsoft has frequent (monthly) small updates. There are occasional "combo" updates called service packs - these wrap up all earlier updates. Unless you've ticked the box that says "automatically restart", Windows will download the updates, install them and (if any update requires a restart) occasionally remind you that you need to restart to complete the update. You can ignore that reminder as long as you want. Restart at any convenient time.

If you install a Windows system shortly before a service pack, you'll have lots of minor updates. Since Microsoft doesn't test and qualify updates separately, this means that after a fresh install you may need to run Windows Update several times to get up to date.

It's really not a big deal. After you install Windows, you run Windows Update again and again until it says "no new updates". This may be two or three cycles at the worst. Since I last installed Windows 7 x64 on this Core i7 on 13 July 2009, it really doesn't put my knickers in a knot if I have to spend an extra hour every other year or so.

After a service pack is released, Microsoft makes new DVD images available with the service pack already merged.

Neither Apple nor Microsoft is "right", and neither is "wrong". They just have somewhat different tactics for shipping and updating software.

 

[blunderboy]

The part of your post which has been conveniently overlooked, is whether or not there is an option to download, and then quit, saving the restart part for a more convenient time.

Your'e right, Apple is much more streamlined, intuitive, and sensible when it comes to performing tasks of any nature - things tend to be more clearly defined, and more thoughtfully presented, overall.

I agree. While Microsoft does allow you to save the installations for later, Apple presents them in a much clearer fashion. I do think that Apple sometimes goes about things in a circuitous way (for example, I think iPods should have the option of dragging songs on to them via the Finder or Windows Explorer, depending on your OS, and use standard USB connectors), but in general, they are better at ease of use than Microsoft.

Apple and Microsoft have two different philosophies for updates.

Apple has occasional large point updates, with a combo update option.

Microsoft has frequent (monthly) small updates. There are occasional "combo" updates called service packs - these wrap up all earlier updates. Unless you've ticked the box that says "automatically restart", Windows will download the updates, install them and (if any update requires a restart) occasionally remind you that you need to restart to complete the update. You can ignore that reminder as long as you want. Restart at any convenient time.

If you install a Windows system shortly before a service pack, you'll have lots of minor updates. Since Microsoft doesn't test and qualify updates separately, this means that after a fresh install you may need to run Windows Update several times to get up to date.

It's really not a big deal. After you install Windows, you run Windows Update again and again until it says "no new updates". This may be two or three cycles at the worst. Since I last installed Windows 7 x64 on this Core i7 on 13 July 2009, it really doesn't put my knickers in a knot if I have to spend an extra hour every other year or so.

After a service pack is released, Microsoft makes new DVD images available with the service pack already merged.

Neither Apple nor Microsoft is "right", and neither is "wrong". They just have somewhat different tactics for shipping and updating software.

I still prefer Apple's method, as opposed to repeatedly checking for Windows Updates. The service packs are more convenient, but they don't come that often. My problem is not with the frequency of Microsoft updates—with Windows' vulnerability, I would definitely have them monthly—but with their way of handling updates on a Windows system that needs more than one of those monthly patches applied. Service packs don't occur as often as Apple's point releases, so you constantly have to download more and more Windows Updates until you're completely patched.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

In my experience, with Mac OS X, you just grab the latest update/upgrade ASAP and it works. It's generally better than the previous version in every way, with a couple of bugs that quickly get ironed out. (Except of course, the big change like OS9-OS10, but the transition was smoothed by dual booting and classic emulation.)

Windows is a different story. You have to wait and see how the new release pans out, you have to research what's incompatible or buggy. I'm guessing those 68% of Windows users learned their mistakes by jumping to Windows ME some years before. I'd also hazard a guess that the average mum and dad users who buy a cheap Windows box will just adopt the attitude that if it's working fine, why change it?

I still use XP Pro SP3. Vista was a joke and almost everything I get for uni work has the "not compatible with Vista" disclaimer, and most programs I come across still recommend XP.

My friend who is a blind windows user just got a lot of virsus' and needed to reformat, what a surprise

Anyways he installed XP and said it's running so much faster then windows 7 coughvistacough, that he is staying with it.

Apple has occasional large point updates, with a combo update option.

Microsoft has frequent (monthly) small updates.

That's because MS has soo many more loopholes and backdoors and god know's what else wrong with the OS to patch.

 

[blunderboy]

My friend who is a blind windows user just got a lot of virsus' and needed to reformat, what a surprise

Anyways he installed XP and said it's running so much faster then windows 7 coughvistacough, that he is staying with it.



That's because MS has soo many more loopholes and backdoors and god know's what else wrong with the OS to patch.

There are so many people who use Windows who have to reformat. You shouldn't have to completely wipe and reinstall the operating system whenever there's a problem. It doesn't help that a lot of PCs don't come with full Windows installation discs.

(and if the guy's not actually blind, what's with the calling him a 'blind Windows user'? Just curious if you're describing a condition or making him out to be one of the 'unwashed masses' or something. If you are making him out that way, it's not helping your argument.)

 

[DMann]

I agree. While Microsoft does allow you to save the installations for later, Apple presents them in a much clearer fashion. I do think that Apple sometimes goes about things in a circuitous way (for example, I think iPods should have the option of dragging songs on to them via the Finder or Windows Explorer, depending on your OS, and use standard USB connectors), but in general, they are better at ease of use than Microsoft.

Much agreed.

The alleged convenience of being able to save installations and restarts for later, is hindered by the nagging reminders, which randomly pop-up and interrupt work flow - having to ignore them is hardly a consolation.

I still prefer Apple's method, as opposed to repeatedly checking for Windows Updates. The service packs are more convenient, but they don't come that often. My problem is not with the frequency of Microsoft updates—with Windows' vulnerability, I would definitely have them monthly—but with their way of handling updates on a Windows system that needs more than one of those monthly patches applied. Service packs don't occur as often as Apple's point releases, so you constantly have to download more and more Windows Updates until you're completely patched.

Most certainly.

It was never a question of "right" or "wrong" in regard to updating procedures and operations in general - it's more an assessment of "better," and "not better."

My friend who is a blind windows user just got a lot of virsus' and needed to reformat, what a surprise

Anyways he installed XP and said it's running so much faster then windows 7 coughvistacough, that he is staying with it.

I have three blind (literally) piano students, each of whom had been previous Windows users, and have switched to Mac - no surprise here.

Regarding XP, I've recently had friends have me reformat their drives and reinstall XP for them - they too attest to a noticeable speed difference, and much prefer XP's comparative overall agility.

I don't argue with them.

That's because MS has soo many more loopholes and backdoors and god know's what else wrong with the OS to patch.

Yes, trying to plug leaks on the outer surface of a colander comes to mind.

 

[iEdd]

Just because you don't understand how to set your options isn't a Windows problem. You can tell Windows Update what you want, just like you can tell Software Update what you want.

No, Windows update is a piece of ****. On my Mac, I use Windows infrequently, such that there is almost some update happening. On the mac, software update pops up with a reminder, where I can press "not now".

Windows does this:

Which means I'm constantly interrupted during my work and I can't leave the computer for more than 15 minutes without Windows killing everything I have open.

It just pops up again and again and again. It's like a child saying "are we there yet?", "Can I restart now?", "Can I restart now?", "Can I restart now?"

What's wrong with a "permanently piss off and just install it when I'm done and press restart" button? I still want the automatic updates, I just don't want to be held at ransom every 15 minutes.

I'm assuming this annoyance isn't in Win7...

 

[ToroidalZeus]

'unwashed masses' or something

This.

He also likes google more then apple even though he has never owned a Mac or iPhone.

 

[DMann]

No, Windows update is a piece of ****. On my Mac, I use Windows infrequently, such that there is almost some update happening. On the mac, software update pops up with a reminder, where I can press "not now".

But no, you're doing it wrong:

"Windows Update gives you the choice to ignore, download, or download and install updates. Just because you don't understand how to set your options isn't a Windows problem. You can tell Windows Update what you want, just like you can tell Software Update what you want."

That's right, blame it on the user.

Why not try to justify the relentless and annoying pop-ups, while you're at it? - - What? Oh, never mind.

Windows does this:

@$#!@

^%$#$@#!@

#@#$#!@#^^%#$#@

$#@^%$%^@#$@#$%$#M$M$M$M$M$M$M$FK

M$FKM%FK@#$!@#$%$#@#$^%$#$%!@M$DIE

Which means I'm constantly interrupted during my work and I can't leave the computer for more than 15 minutes without Windows killing everything I have open.

It just pops up again and again and again. It's like a child saying "are we there yet?", "Can I restart now?", "Can I restart now?", "Can I restart now?"

Also, quite analogous to an overly zealous, stir-crazy dog, drooling, and panting away..... "Can I go out now..." "Can I restart now?", "Can I restart now?", "Can I restart now?" LOL.

Never mind that this constant badgering brings work flow and productivity to a screeching halt.

What's wrong with a "permanently piss off and just install it when I'm done and press restart" button? I still want the automatic updates, I just don't want to be held at ransom every 15 minutes.

I'm assuming this annoyance isn't in Win7...

This is one of countless reasons why people abandon Windows.

Have you ever attempted to compete with UAC in W7?