Why can't Microsoft build a secure operating system?

[zap2]

They pretty much said screw all the old software and threw it out. other OS so the chances of finding a new one are greatly increases as well.

Not really...Apple have the option to emulate OS 9 or even have it Installed w/ OS X. OS 9 App have only been killed off with the change to Intel OS X, before that even Tiger could run OS 9 Apps


MS needs to do something, and fast. To think that they can hold off Google for Apps, and fight off Linux and OS X for OS marketshare is foolish. All MS's enemies are heros for the public

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

That's all it is. Nothing more. Look at the registry. Nearly identical to XP's. It's the same OS.

You're so completely right. The spent five years bumping back release days for nothing.



The blind Windows hate here is just as bad as, if not worse than, the blind Mac hate in the other forums around the 'net.

 

[compuwar]

1) The money that comes from selling antivirus software. If there's no antivirus software on the market, who loses money and stock? The antivirus companies. This is why I believe some of the viruses and spyware out there are created by these same companies, to sell their product.

You may believe it, but that just shows that you don't have a clue about the AV industry. It's not true. It hasn't ever been true. If AV researchers stay the way they are now and have been, it won't ever be true.

We've had *lots* of virus arrests in the last decade (I was one of the people who tracked down Jan DeWitt- though certainly not the only one.) In no case has any of the writers been associated with an AV company.

The truth is that there are enough people creating malcode that the AV guys have all they can do to keep up, they don't need anything new.

 

[kerpow]

You're so completely right. The spent five years bumping back release days for nothing.



The blind Windows hate here is just as bad as, if not worse than, the blind Mac hate in the other forums around the 'net.

Yup. I'm not sure there is any point discussing Vista on this board.

But for what it's worth, I'll make a bold statement that will surely knock me off a people's Christmas card list.

Vista, purely from a OS standpoint not the bundled apps - gotta love iLife, is better than Tiger. But I expect Leopard will raise the bar again. Infact, I think we all knew that that was Apple's strategy anyway.

 

[mac-er]

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.

Well, I made it through the first page of the thread with some hope because all the people were actually making intelligent comments, until this one.

Stop trying to make OS X better than it is. I love Mac OS X, but I'm not unrealistic about why we don't have more problems than we do. Ever heard of the Month of Bugs?

People choose not to exploit Mac OS X.

 

[someguy]

You're so completely right. The spent five years bumping back release days for nothing.

Did I say that or did you put words in my mouth?

I said it's the same OS, I did not say it did not have new features. The core of Vista is nearly identical to the core of XP. Prove me wrong.

Stop trying to make OS X better than it is. I love Mac OS X, but I'm not unrealistic about why we don't have more problems than we do. Ever heard of the Month of Bugs?

I don't think anyone here would say that OS X is perfect. We don't try to make it seem better than it is, we just love it for what it is and choose to express that love when we post. Do you not love not having to worry so much about malware on a Mac? Do you not love the seamlessness between apps? Do you not love your Mac?

Regardless of what outsiders may think, we aren't brainwashed here. We have simply seen the light - we caught a glimpse of what computing should look like and chose to stick with it. Why do you have such a problem with that?

People choose not to exploit Mac OS X.

Exploit it how? I hope this isn't a reference to "security by obscurity" because that is about as lame an excuse as it gets when it comes to Windows zealots (look I said it!) arguing why the Mac is so much safer.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

The core of Vista is nearly identical to the core of XP. Prove me wrong.

I obviously can't do that, since I don't have access to the source code, but I suspect that a line-by-line audit of the "OS core" (however you want to try and define that) would easily prove you wrong.

 

[someguy]

I obviously can't do that, since I don't have access to the source code, but I suspect that a line-by-line audit of the "OS core" (however you want to try and define that) would easily prove you wrong.

Source code aside (because neither of us have access to it), as I said earlier, look at the registry. Nearly identical. How different could the source code possibly be when nearly everything aside from the GUI and the few new features in Vista is the same in XP? It uses all the same processes and services in the background. It runs the same, it crashes the same. It is a slightly optimized version of XP (Service Pack 3, if you will).

I'd be willing to bet that the inner-workings of Windows Vista aren't very different at all from that of XP. It is certainly no ground-up rebuild.

Side-by-side comparison.

 

[bousozoku]

Source code aside (because neither of us have access to it), as I said earlier, look at the registry. Nearly identical. How different could the source code possibly be when nearly everything aside from the GUI and the few new features in Vista is the same in XP? It uses all the same processes and services in the background. It runs the same, it crashes the same. It is a slightly optimized version of XP (Service Pack 3, if you will).

I'd be willing to bet that the inner-workings of Windows Vista aren't very different at all from that of XP. It is certainly no ground-up rebuild.

Side-by-side comparison.

It probably was a re-write until 2003 when they apparently scrapped everything and started again.

It's pitiful that it took them three years working with their current base but it looks like they just poked some holes in the kernel to add extra conduits for services.

 

[someguy]

It probably was a re-write until 2003 when they apparently scrapped everything and started again.

It's pitiful that it took them three years working with their current base but it looks like they just poked some holes in the kernel to add extra conduits for services.

I heard the story about them starting over, supposedly from scratch, but look at the final product...

How can something so similar (in more fundamental ways than GUI similarities) be played off as something new? For the sake of having even the slightest respect for Microsoft, I sure hope that this really is just a skinned, slightly modified version of XP - because if Vista is the product of Microsoft starting from scratch, I feel bad for them. They missed the chance to turn Windows into something great, IMO.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

[... A]s I said earlier, look at the registry. Nearly identical.

Because the registry is clearly the most important part of the OS.

Admittedly, I don't have a Vista install, so I can't do much registry comparison. The overall structure of it will be the same, and many of the keys and values may line up, but I doubt that it's line-for-line the same.

How different could the source code possibly be when nearly everything aside from the GUI and the few new features in Vista is the same in XP?

You're not much of a developer, are you?

It uses all the same processes and services in the background.

Are they binary equivalent? Or do they just have the same name, for consistency's sake?

It runs the same, it crashes the same.

I've read (and witness) quite the opposite, but to each their own.

It is a slightly optimized version of XP (Service Pack 3, if you will).

Keep digging, my friend.

I'd be willing to bet that the inner-workings of Windows Vista aren't very different at all from that of XP. It is certainly no ground-up rebuild.

Side-by-side comparison.

You're kidding, right? That article is more than a year old.

It probably was a re-write until 2003 when they apparently scrapped everything and started again.

Quite the contrary, IIRC. They were going to build in a new filesystem and a ton of other "built from scratch" components, but just don't have the time.

A lot of it is due to business-grade compatibility (meaning their corporate and government customers), a lot if it has to do with dense (in more ways than one) leadership at Microsoft.

It's pitiful that it took them three years working with their current base but it looks like they just poked some holes in the kernel to add extra conduits for services.

You people amaze me.

Apple nails you for $129 every 18 months for a slight performance boost and a couple of handful of new features (ignoring the ones that no one uses). Microsoft does the same thing, on a longer timeframe, and you do nothing but bitch and moan.

 

[Swarmlord]

But they avoid doing even the easy stuff. Microsoft must have long known that allowing system-level changes to be made without an administrative user having to provide explicit permission is a major security vulnerability, yet they failed to make this improvement in Vista.

Exactly! Windows allows writing to the registry, execution of services from any directory on the hard drive, and they've spread the ability to run services automatically (while hiding them) all over the registry. Not to mention supplying little or no real tools to view, modify or investigate those services that load.

All this without a peep if some rogue program installs itself when you're web browsing.

As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft did this to both allow and facilitate their ability to install, check and do things behind the scenes without the user being aware of it and hackers have just exploited it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Exactly! Windows allows writing to the registry, execution of services from any directory on the hard drive, and they've spread the ability to run services automatically (while hiding them) all over the registry. Not to mention supplying little or no real tools to view, modify or investigate those services that load.

All this without a peep if some rogue program installs itself when you're web browsing.

As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft did this to both allow and facilitate their ability to install, check and do things behind the scenes without the user being aware of it and hackers have just exploited it.

Well we agree on something, anyhow!

 

[bousozoku]

I heard the story about them starting over, supposedly from scratch, but look at the final product...

How can something so similar (in more fundamental ways than GUI similarities) be played off as something new? For the sake of having even the slightest respect for Microsoft, I sure hope that this really is just a skinned, slightly modified version of XP - because if Vista is the product of Microsoft starting from scratch, I feel bad for them. They missed the chance to turn Windows into something great, IMO.

Either you didn't understand what I was saying or I wrote it poorly.

They started out re-writing everything, only to stop mid-stream and go back to WinXP and extend that in 2003.

Quite the contrary, IIRC. They were going to build in a new filesystem and a ton of other "built from scratch" components, but just don't have the time.

A lot of it is due to business-grade compatibility (meaning their corporate and government customers), a lot if it has to do with dense (in more ways than one) leadership at Microsoft.

You people amaze me.

Apple nails you for $129 every 18 months for a slight performance boost and a couple of handful of new features (ignoring the ones that no one uses). Microsoft does the same thing, on a longer timeframe, and you do nothing but bitch and moan.

You people?

I complain about Apple, too. I guess you don't notice those posts, though. I still haven't found anything compelling in Tiger, except for the performance boost and some internals.

Microsoft started off with a new design will all the goodies and dropped it after 3 years of development to start with the WinXP code. Considering what they've done since 2003, it's not exactly award winning work.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Exactly! Windows allows writing to the registry, execution of services from any directory on the hard drive, and they've spread the ability to run services automatically (while hiding them) all over the registry. Not to mention supplying little or no real tools to view, modify or investigate those services that load.

All this without a peep if some rogue program installs itself when you're web browsing.

As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft did this to both allow and facilitate their ability to install, check and do things behind the scenes without the user being aware of it and hackers have just exploited it.

But you do knwo taht M$ did make ti harder for rouge programs to install and that is you ahve to enter in a admin password to allow it. Much like the mac. There is only so much one can do to deal with human stupidity which is the greats security hole in any computer and never raelly be plug expect though education. IN that deparement mac users and PC users have the same major security flaw and that just human stupidity.

 

[pseudobrit]

Well, I made it through the first page of the thread with some hope because all the people were actually making intelligent comments, until this one.

Stop trying to make OS X better than it is. I love Mac OS X, but I'm not unrealistic about why we don't have more problems than we do. Ever heard of the Month of Bugs?

People choose not to exploit Mac OS X.

You know, if you're going to attack me in asinine fashion, I expect some substance behind it.

There hasn't been a single Mac OS X virus in the wild. I don't think you could count the number of live, active, in-the-wild 'sploits for Windows. The Mac has a 16% install base. It's not an obscure system.

Mac OS X may not be invulnerable, but I don't see why that fact excuses Windows for being leaky as a British sports car.

I'll be waiting for your "intelligent comments."

 

[thugpoet22]

This new release was quite pointless. I would have preferred a later launch date if that would have given them more time to make a better product. It seems like the only innovations are visual. I wished they would have dumped that registry. I also wish they included the new file system. The only thing they did was create a GUI that uses up more memory and seems even more candy coated than XP. I know for a fact that im not going to upgrade my desktop to vista because i might have to buy a new graphics card just to run it LOL.

 

[SMM]

Well, I made it through the first page of the thread with some hope because all the people were actually making intelligent comments, until this one.

Stop trying to make OS X better than it is. I love Mac OS X, but I'm not unrealistic about why we don't have more problems than we do. Ever heard of the Month of Bugs?

People choose not to exploit Mac OS X.

You are promoting MS propaganda. There is no evidence that market share contributes to exploits. And, Month of Bugs found basically nadda.