Not that I really care, just curious. What about this new Vista, do you still have to load it up with anti-spyware software? Seems like they've had plenty of time to build a virus proof operating system. 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why can't Microsoft build a secure operating system?
- Thread starter MACDRIVE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not that simple mate. They've gotta make an OS that's compatible with as much stuff as possible, from the latest hardware to the oldest software. The more things change...
i heard someone hacked Vista two weeks or months after its initial release.
Looks like Vista is just a skinned XP...
Looks like Vista is just a skinned XP...
It sure is. CTRL-ALT-DELed the Vista display at Best Buy and it's running the SAME processes as XP does. Just a few more are added to support Gadgets and shiny-glass-mode. What a ripoff. I put a nice note on the Gadget thing saying "Welcome to a Mac OS X ripoff!" Can say the manager in that department wasn't too happy to see that.
Not that I really care, just curious. What about this new Vista, do you still have to load it up with anti-spyware software? Seems like they've had plenty of time to build a virus proof operating system.
I would argue that the reason they don't is because they don't have to do so. When you have 90%+ of the market (or however much it is these days, still an overwhelming majority) and brand loyalty ingrained, you can put out substandard product and the people will still buy it.
a colleague installed vista a few weeks ago. he is still configuring it right now to make it work with our system...
i don't think the company plan to support vista (at least in 3 years at the earliest).
the company has just started deploying xp pro last summer.
i don't think the company plan to support vista (at least in 3 years at the earliest).
the company has just started deploying xp pro last summer.
I think that is a huge part of it. M$ had to make sure it would work with 90-95% of the software that was out there so that can leave some issues.
Unlike apple M$ cannt really start over. Apple had the advantages of being very small and having a very very small market share so making OSX and starting over was not a huge deal. They pretty much said screw all the old software and threw it out. This allowed apple to fix a lot of problems from there OS that was pre Internet age. M$ still has to deal with issues and holes from pre Internet that are hard to plug.
Also to top it off M$ OS easily get over 100 times the attention in trying to find holes and problems than the other OS so the chances of finding a new one are greatly increases as well.
Well, they can and eventually they're going to have to. There's something in their pipeline called "Singularity" which appears to be a brand new operating system. Not Windows, some brand spanking new operating system.
It's with this new OS I think Microsoft will draw a line in the sand much like Apple did with OS9 - OSX.
if so it is about damn time. I wondering if Vista is more of a stop gap than anything else. They had to get it out the door and more than likely going to be at least 1 more OS on top of that before they are able to start over. But it would be a much needed start over.
Just remember M$ has a much higher requirement on software compatibility than Apple ever had so it is 10 times more difficulted for them to do it.
Not that I really care, just curious. What about this new Vista, do you still have to load it up with anti-spyware software? Seems like they've had plenty of time to build a virus proof operating system.
There is BIG MONEY made from the business of providing software for "securing" MS Windows. That is why Windows will always be insecure. Help me help you...
I agree that M$ will dump Windows eventually. But with most of the marketshare, new problems will soon develop. Third Party software and all that.
It seems Microsoft is cursed...
It seems Microsoft is cursed...
That's all it is. Nothing more. Look at the registry. Nearly identical to XP's. It's the same OS.
I believe most of the existing malware for XP runs just fine on Vista as well. You still very much need to load up on anti-malware programs. I still cringe at the thought that there were articles declaring Windows Vista the "most secure OS ever". Are people out of their ****ing minds? Do they not realize that Windows is basically the only non-secure OS available?
well M$ did get one thing right with XP SP2 that help solve a lot of there problems and they are going to keep this in Vista and that it they change the default setting for installing updates from telling the user that they are downloaded and ready to install to installing them automatically and at one point there was a rumor that in vista they would remove the users ability of choosing to prevent critical updates from installing. But I do know they are going to make the default for updates install automatic.
This will solve a HUGE number of the security problems with windows because a lot of the famous worms out there where using exploits that M$ had match a month or more before it hit. Just people did not update there computer and so they became easy targets.
Change that one little thing does a lot to reduce the security problems in windows.
This will solve a HUGE number of the security problems with windows because a lot of the famous worms out there where using exploits that M$ had match a month or more before it hit. Just people did not update there computer and so they became easy targets.
Change that one little thing does a lot to reduce the security problems in windows.
this is the reason. Apple doesn't have to support nearly so many hardware configurations as Microsoft does. There are going to holes.
btw, MS does build a stable OS. It's on the XBox.
Ah, but Microsoft could have easily instituted real administrative password protection for system-level changes, but they opted for easily dismissed drive-by verification instead. Backwards compatibility and hardware have nothing to do with this failure. Microsoft doesn't need to care, so they don't. It's the old story all over again.
I'm skeptical. MS is still controlled too much by some element of their company that values focus groups and foot-dragging technological troglodytes.
They're so concerned about selling their newest OS to a company that still uses software written in 1995 that they'll refuse to overhaul their system for the modern era.
If you knew anything about Windows and Mac OS X security you'd know that's a ******** excuse bandied about by Redmond apologists.
An insecure OS is insecure whether it has a 0% marketshare or 100%.
Windows is an inherently insecure OS. Period.
Of course not. Such a thing is not realistic. But Windows is full of holes that are irrelevant to how popular it is.
Its marketshare doesn't explain or excuse its problems.
Right on. I agree that Vista is XP with a new paint job.
you know by that argument Tiger is just OS 10.0 with a few new fancy things in it. So if you go by that line of though then people could point to Tiger and just call it 10.0 with a a few new things but really the same OS.
And we both know that the statement about tiger is not true and it is the same with Vista. Tiger is bases 10.0. Vista base is from XP Sp2 and built from there. Just like Tiger is from 10.0 and built up from there.
That's funny, I don't remember 10.0 working on x86.
Come to think of it, I don't remember 10.0 working very much at all.