Finagle, please read everything Badger said, and digest it. Macs aren’t and never were the driving force behind the open home computer market. They’ve never had the pull or the market share and to deny Microsoft’s part in bringing PCs to every free home in America is to truly be in denial about it.
Most likely that some sort of “Macs are superior to PCs”, attitude. But that’s not what this thread is about. It’s about whether Microsoft is committing a sin by trying to make sure users of their products are more secure-mainly because some people think that each and every security issue on the internet is because of Microsoft.
Keep on topic, bucko. What you’ve done is the equivalent of a Republican/Democrat board war where some Republican must mention Clinton’s name for the hell of it, while talking about the 2006 State of the Union Address.
It isn’t their attempts at improving security I’m scoffing at here – indeed I’ve never denied that they are trying. The problem is their historical lack of adequate testing prior to release compounded by the release of new OS versions before the old ones have been satisfactorily fixed up, as if to say “We’ll just sweep these under the rug of a snazzy new version.” I don’t think anyone needs to be reminded of Windows ME.
XP was certainly a giant leap in the right direction – a new branch of the NT kernal rather than a kludge on top of the 95 core. In fact, I did the Happy Dance of Joy when I finally got my hands on XP, replacing my accursed and foul WinME installation. It was stable, it seemed secure. I was pleased.
Now, I’m pretty careful when it comes to the net. That doesn’t mean I don’t get spam by the assload (though I just installed an anti-spam proxy the other day so I’m trying that out) but I’ve almost never had a virus, trojan or worm. Not because XP is secure in this regard, but because I’ve been dilligent in making sure I had the latest protection whenever I’d hear about yet another security hole. And invariably, the temporary fixes would always show up from Symantec long before Microsoft got around to releasing any kind of official patch. This is where my problem lies: If Symantec can detect and at least provide a temporary solution for a problem in Windows, just what the hell is Microsoft sitting around doing? Because it’s obvious they don’t exactly have a crack team of bug hunters scouring the codebase for signs of weakness.
Sure, we’re talking about a codebase whose printout could liberally TP the entire Amazonian rainforest, but when you’ve got third party partners doing all the bug finding, you have to question the efficacy of the company the bugs belong to.
Specifically, your insane assertion that “I absolutely disagree that Windows isn’t the best thing ever to happen to the computer. Without Windows, the computer would likely still be used by only administrators and powersusers, developers in large companies. Windblows took it out of the industrial environment, and into the consumer realm.”
One could argue much more cogently that the internet was the best thing ever to happen to the computer because it was the "killer app" that made it indispensable for most people. 90% of the people who use computers don't give a damn about the operating system (which is why Microsoft was so desperate to crush Netscape).
If the PC wasn’t running on Windows, some other vendor would have stepped in. One could argue that the Commodore 64 had a bigger role in opening up the computer to home usage. Fairly easy to use and dirt cheap hardware.
Now Microsoft has some decent applications and you can’t discount the network effect – once enough people start using a product, it’s easier to standardize on it even if it’s mediocre. But as a corporation, I’d be hardpressed to think of very many forward-looking innovations that they’ve made (and I am a computer professional with 25+ years experience who uses the MS operating system every day).
Had an afternoon to kill, so i installed OneCare Live and ran it. It took several hours to complete. The result:
All my passwords disappeared.
All my cookies got eatened.
My Windows Media Player refused to opened protected media.
A window saying “C++ error”. :eek:
Finagle, in that case I suppose you could lump the Timex Sinclair and the TI/64 into that category as well. Though they were non-standard in hardware and only ran Basic code and had virtually no impact on what was to become the PC.
Sure sounds like a big ol’ one to me. Sort of an incentive to make Windows less secure, so more people buy their security program. I wonder how long it will take for MS to sell a program to protect their security program.
So are you of the opinion that, had they bundled this suite of applications into Windows, Microsoft would not save been accused of monopolistic trust violations by Norton, McAfee and others? Is there anything Microsoft could do with regard to security that would not be worthy of your scorn?
Yes, but you were discussing the adoption of the computer in the home. Not the PC. Things like the Sinclair, the Amiga, and the Commodore led the advance. Few homes had PCs, not because of the convenience (or lack of) of the operating system, but because the hardware was damnably expensive. It wasn’t til everything got sorted out in the early 90’s with the '486 price wars that PCs became an affordable commodity.
Well, none. That was the point. It’s a Hitch Hiker’s Guide joke. I’m not going to respond to anything else until tomorrow because it’s half midnight on a Friday and I’m pissed. G’night, folks. And remember: whether you think you can, or you think you can’t: you’re right.
I don’t know, and it is unrealted to my statement.
Yes lots of things. The problem I see is them charging extra if you want your OS to, you know, actually be secure - something that it should be by default.
Was it really that bad in terms of price? I ask because my family had a true IBM 286 and my best friend’s family had a Mac (along with a TI of some sort that I’ve never learned the identity of–most I can tell you is that it read cartridges that we used to play games and I think we were the only ones to use it by that time.) Now, I guess that both of our families could be a bad example, but I never knew anyone with a Sinclair, Amiga, or Commodore. This would be from probably 1987ish on, when I’d be five or six. The schools had Apple IIes but I don’t remember any IBM PC/Compatibles until, well, high school, and of course at both colleges I’ve gone to they have pretty much standardized on Dell and the latest Windows OS. As for the OS in those days, I don’t know. I learned how to at least navigate a DOS environment when I was a kid. I never learned all the commands but at least I can do enough when I encounter a computer running DOS these days (mostly very old computers hooked into very old instrumentation that can only run with very old proprietary software and sometimes even hardware.) Dad even wrote a program (probably a batch file) that would bring up a menu that would open programs with number and letter input for the stuff on the hard drive. I didn’t really start using Windows (except for stuff like Paint) until Windows 95, and I was the real holdout in the family, preferring DOS and Windows 3.11.
ouryL, thanks for taking one for the team. Of course you backed up all the important information on your hard drive before you tried something so foolhardy as a systemic change. Right? Please say yes. If not, well, dang you gots gumption!
In related news: Ford announces two axle-car with three wheels. ‘Less friction equals better gas mileage’ says Ford spokesperson. ‘For those consumers worried about safety, an additional wheel is available for $300.00 from the Ford website’.
For just reading message boards, I’ve been thinking about going back to Win - 95 on an old puter I have that has a scuzzy drive, just to get quick boot times and fast reading. I can’t make my pipe any faster out here in the boonies so I’m thinking about making the individual steps quicker. Bare bones with IreFox and strip out all extras from W-95.
Cold switch ‘on’ to reading threads in less then 20 seconds.
Well, in 1989, I bought a no-name clone assembled in the wilds of New Hampshire with a 10 or 12 Mhz '286 chip, CGA graphics and a 40MB hard drive and some pathetic amount of memory for $2K. I think going to a '386 chip would have raised the price by another $500 or $1000.00. Then, in the early 90’s, Intel got in a shooting match with AMD over the prices of '486 chips, and it got to the point where you could buy a motherboard and chip for few hundred dollars. Bt then, hard drive prices had also fallen, so instead of paying $400 for a 40 MB drive, you’d be getting a 200 or 400 MB drive.
Meanwhile, you could get a Commodore for a couple of hundred dollars (altough you did have to buy a monitor and tape drive/floppy drive which drove up the price).
Wow. It’s amazing what you don’t realize as a kid. This thing (helped by Dad’s upgrades over the years) had it all. EGA graphics (think we only got VGA when he bought the Gateway-built 486.) Sound card. Fairly large amounts of RAM and HDD space. Fastest internal modem available.
So, yeah, I guess that’s the real question. What’s more important for getting a computer to the masses–the price point of the hardware or the UI of the OS? Of course, these days I just homebrew, use open-source software on the security end (I generally run WinXP) for anti-virus, anti-spyware, and so on, and have years and years of older hardware and software available to me, though I don’t currently run any hardware older than about five years.