Printable View
Although Microsoft will continue to devise ways to improve the means by which Windows users apply upgrades, or patches, to their software, the company had realized that too many customers don't upgrade quickly enough to thwart hackers.
To read more about it http://news.com.com/2100-1002_3-5085...?tag=nefd_lede
might help a little but not too much. with the rate at which patches come out. it still is a problem. M$ should just concentrate on making a better OS that has less holes and more stable. If only they would create an OS that is purely an OS and doesnt come with all the crap that you never need and all the holes to make life easier for idiots.
Securing the perimeter only helps to a certain extent. once the worm gets in, and ur systems are not patched, you are still screwed. and in a large organisation rolling out patches to large number of users that are mobile is a real pain as many dont connect the network to allow the patch to be applied. to keep up with all the patches and to keep track of which systems have been patched is a major PITA. It is almost a full time job.
It's $ it's all about the $....If m$ really wanted to build a good, stable OS they would but there is no $ in that.. I think Gates forgot why he started doing this....
*Heavy Sigh* Some more Microsoft-bashing. Fun.Quote:
Originally posted here by crashburn181
It's $ it's all about the $....If m$ really wanted to build a good, stable OS they would but there is no $ in that.. I think Gates forgot why he started doing this....
Contrary to popular belief, Windows is actually a very stable, secure platform... when used correctly. The idiot users cause the problems, not Bill Gates. Not ANY ol' idiot could be the wealthiest man in America. Think about that, then stop bashing Microsoft.
Quote:
cheyenne1212: I alwasy hear people saying that windows sucks, the security is bad, *nix is far more secure. But they don't seem to understand, that if you know a lot about Windows, and not a lot about *nix, then Windows is going to be the more secure OS.
Quote:
Striek: I've been running 2000 for about 3 years now. I patch it every week if patches are available for it, and have never had a problem yet.
If you hate Microsoft that bad, i dunno, go sue them. Tell them one of their biggest fans sent you.Quote:
rapier57: Try to take a whole-system view of the issue, and you will be more successful keeping the systems stable and running well.
:eek:
i agree windows can be safe and stable if maintained correctly...this however is not the case with 99% of people who use it therefore i think the best path microsoft could take right now would be to make windows completely idiot proof. this i know is much easier said than done but i beleive that if microsoft was really intent and focused on doign this they could.....
Having said this i would like to state that to me it would seem that microsoft is does not seem to be really trying too hard to accomplish this.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally posted here by mnchur
therefore i think the best path microsoft could take right now would be to make windows completely idiot proof.
You've got to be kidding me. Windows, NOT idiot-proof? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
mnchur, rock on :thumbsup:
you must understand what i am talking about here...im talking IDIOT PROOF... like i wnat the the guy i standing behind in line who was worried he was drinking poison because his dr.pepper had carbon dioxide in it to be able to use it without problem.
Hi,
This is quite interesting :) I have seen Microsoft operating systems being criticised for being designed for idiots..........on this very forum. I have also seen the ZoneAlarm firewall criticised the same.
It seems that there is a trade off between ease of use and functionality?
For a while Microsoft seemed to be pursuing a home user v. commercial user distinction (e.g. 9x vs NT). With XP they have done a U-turn?
I would hope that with only one OS to develop and support they will start to get it right? But I am afraid it is a bit like Tax Law..................a few government officers come up with the legislation and two million lawyers and CPAs start looking for holes in it?
Just my £0.02 worth
Cheers
A professor of mine put it best when he stated that Windows XP is comprised of approximately 10 million lines of code written by college grads thier first year out of school (who else would work for Microsoft?). Once I realized how true this was, I stopped wondering why Windows is so full of holes. It's written by a team of newbies in locked rooms chained to thier desks and only tested by people who want to sell it. Linux is written by experts around the world who stand to make an ass of themselves (at the very least) if they screw up. It is then tested by people who are designing the product not for profit, but because they are personally motivated to better thier programming skills. When they test it, they look for reasons NOT to release it, unlike Microsoft.
Quote:
Ahh, but a smart man with a shitty product CAN!!!
;)