Gates, BBC: Vista "more secure than any other operating system released" - thoughts?

[FurryNemesis]

Don't know if this should be merged with a Vista thread, but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6313981.stm

Vista "dramatically more secure than any other operating system released", says Gates. Personally, I think it's taken out of context, but if Gates meant any OS released by Microsoft, he could well be right. On the other hand.... *s*******
Your opinions?

The BBC is making a big fuss about resource hogging too, and the "have your say" board is hopping with people who are underwhelmed with the whole affair. Are we seeing the start of a backlash already?

[ade234uk]

I hope we are seeing a backlash. Listen I dont like seeing people or companies fail, but in the case of M$ I would just love it why?

Becuase for the last 10 years they have been screwing home users, business users, health authorities, education authorities for as much money as possible with insecure products. They have been blocking other companies out, they have also not met certain standards.

The enviorment is a big factor as well at the moment. While everyone in this world is thinking how they can protect this planet M$ bring out an OS that requires everyone to buy new machines which in turn adds to global warming effect. I know this sounds stupid but its true.

Secondly these days people are more PC savey. They dont like being told what to do by large organisations, nor do they like one companies telling them what they can and cant do on a PC. They dont like paying out more money either.

I think Vista is one of Microsofts biggest mistake. Looking at the BBC forums proves it.

[riven0]

Gates, BBC: Vista "more secure than any other operating system released" - thoughts?


http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-044.gif

[steven8]

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-044.gif


Hold that thought. . .

[the.dark.lord]

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-044.gif

Me too.

[cunawarit]

I don’t know if he meant ANY system. Vista security might be very advanced, but considering how many people will try and find holes on it I don’t think you can say that any version of Windows is more secure than some less mainstream OSs.

As for a backlash, LOL! What backlash? The media are lappin’ it up and going nuts for it.

Moaning? Exactly the same that happened when XP came out is happening now, some people are moaning, remember people saying “XP is very slow on my 64MB Pentium II”?. I was one of the ones that did initially try and run it with only 64 MB, did it hamper my XP experience in the long run? No! XP has been great!

I personally don’t think Vista’s requirements are all that high; you can today buy a Vista PC for peanuts! Did people expect it to run happily on 256 MB? Vista will be Microsoft’s top desktop OS for the next 5 to 6 years; PC hardware will move a long way in that time. Traditionally a new Windows has made people buy faster hardware, absolutely nothing has changed in this front.

Vista is already a success, it will drive hardware sales, it will slowly permeate the home and the corporate world with every new PC. I am in the process moving house so I haven’t bought it yet, but from what I have seen it is pretty nice. Looking forward to running it in my new home.

[Kateikyoushi]

Maybe he means it has DRM...

[tigerpants]

MS's problem with their software has always been - why use 1 line of code when 3 will do?

That, in itself , creates an exploitable environment. If MS had any sense, it would have ditched Windows architecture back in 95 and release Win98 as a UNIX based system. Apple evenutally got it, and did that, but it took them ages. Windows architecture is single CPU, non-networked, which is why its so exploitable - endless patching to make it networthy doesn't work. Its not been changed in 15 years. Linux is better at being a botched desktop OS than Windows is at being a botched networking OS. And the crazy thing is, that people pay money for it.

[Malac]

Prices for the OS in the UK range from about £100 for an upgrade version of the Basic package to £249 for a copy of the upgrade to the Ultimate version of Vista.
In the US prices start from $100 (£52) for an upgrade of Vista Home basic to $249 (£127) for the equivalent Ultimate version.That's what EU gets for trying to slap lawsuit on MS. :)
And as for the way he tries to justify it as some sort of exchange rate problem. Hardly, Mr Bill, Hardly.
Exchange rate problem being they just change $ sign to £.

[cunawarit]

Linux is better at being a botched desktop OS than Windows is at being a botched networking OS.

And that's why Windows dominates the desktop world, and *nix dominates the server world.


And the crazy thing is, that people pay money for it.

It is a great desktop OS, and the obvious choice in the corporate environment. That's why people pay money for it.

[cunawarit]

That's what EU gets for trying to slap lawsuit on MS. :)

We always get screwed that way in the UK, with games, cars, software, clothes, etc, etc, etc...

To balance it out though European software vendors are allowed to sell the OEM version of Vista. Or so I'm told anyway... I think the license is invalidated unless you install it on a brand new PC... I think...

[Malac]

It is a great desktop OS, and the obvious choice in the corporate environment. That's why people pay money for it.
No it's because they are used to it.

And Linux, generally is too difficult to set up.
Up until Ubuntu after trying 10 different distros and not being able to get any of them working I was ready to give up, and I'm a stubborn sod. :)

Can you imagine a huge corporation putting up with that.
So they win because on 99.9% of PC's out at the time, Windows works.
I've said it before but I'll say it again."Too many Linux distro's, dissipating efforts."


I think the license is invalidated unless you install it on a brand new PC... I think...
Yep absolutely true, however if you read the eula you are allowed to "transfer" ownership. It does not say that you are not allowed to receive money for this "transfer" :)

[tigerpants]

And that's why Windows dominates the desktop world, and *nix dominates the server world.



I'm not talking about servers. All modern desktops are networked. MS didn't envisage this back in the early 90's. It designed its OS to work on a single desktop, in isolation, with limited networking functionality, which was a huge mistake. *nix is a networking OS with networking protocols and functuality built into its core, which is what I meant when I said that linux is better at being a botched desktop OS than windows is at being a botched networked OS. Servers are a different kettle of fish. You can't keep patching and patching a failing system like MS has with windows - it needs to be overhauled from the ground up. Vista is another patch. It'll get hacked in minutes by someone. Its DRM will be shafted. It'll happen because its flawed fundamentally. There is a finite number of times you can keep applying sticky tape to cover up the cracks.

[Sunflower1970]

The enviorment is a big factor as well at the moment. While everyone in this world is thinking how they can protect this planet M$ bring out an OS that requires everyone to buy new machines which in turn adds to global warming effect. I know this sounds stupid but its true.


We should 'adopt' one of those misfit computers that no longer are considered useful, put a Linux distro on it, and then give it away to someone who needs a computer but cannot afford one. :)

[Ghil]

a lot of people are already doing that Sunflower, and most organizations really need some volunteers to keep up the work :P

[cunawarit]

Malac,

I don’t think Linux is at all hard to set up, I found both Ubuntu and Debian much easier to install than XP! They auto-detect and automatically set up a lot more stuff. Linux doesn’t make for a bad desktop OS at home at all, I love my Debian machine!

It is a different matter in the corporate world.

You mention installing Linux, but really this is a complete non-issue with a big corporation. Remember that they buy desktops in batches, and they don’t install it in every single machine, they have standard configurations for the same models.

Price doesn’t persuade them either, you’ll find that many corporations are reluctant to go for free software, because, it is... Guess what? Free!!! They don’t get a Service Level Agreement when they download Ubuntu. To get that, they will pay for Linux.

The reason more corporations don’t use Linux is simply because it doesn’t yet do what they can do with Windows. For example, you might say that the Linux equivalent to Microsoft Office is Open Office, but Open Office cannot replace Microsoft Office in the corporate world because it isn’t up to par with MS Office when it comes to collaborative tools. What Microsoft offers to the corporate world is fantastic, all their tools tie in together seamlessly and form an overall package that most corporations couldn’t do without.

OSX is an incredibly powerful OS that in most ways is superior to XP. But does Apple market it this way? No! They talk about how it is good for music, and pictures, and tell you how much fun it is to use at home. They simply know that going after the corporate market is useless, Microsoft has hold of that market with an iron grip. One of the problems with Linux is that nobody markets it, if Wal-Mart sold millions upon millions of $100 PCs with Ubuntu in them I can pretty much warranty you that even Microsoft and Apple would be fighting it out to bring their popular software to it.

[mips]

He has obviously not heard of OpenBSD. Not nearly as easy to install etc but way secure.

[Trebuchet]

Typical corporate hyperbole, but hardly damning. Personally I'm glad to see MS finally taking security seriously. I'm a bit skeptical myself, because the biggest vulnerabilities even with XP are device drivers and wireless connections outside the OS.

Since some of Vista's security measures are distinctly Linux/Unix-like, it appears they're moving in the right direction. Only time will tell.

[some_random_noob]

I hope we are seeing a backlash. Listen I dont like seeing people or companies fail, but in the case of M$ I would just love it why?

Becuase for the last 10 years they have been screwing home users, business users, health authorities, education authorities for as much money as possible with insecure products. They have been blocking other companies out, they have also not met certain standards.

The enviorment is a big factor as well at the moment. While everyone in this world is thinking how they can protect this planet M$ bring out an OS that requires everyone to buy new machines which in turn adds to global warming effect. I know this sounds stupid but its true.

Secondly these days people are more PC savey. They dont like being told what to do by large organisations, nor do they like one companies telling them what they can and cant do on a PC. They dont like paying out more money either.

I think Vista is one of Microsofts biggest mistake. Looking at the BBC forums proves it.
Probably what I would have written, oh well thanks for saving me the time, I'll just quote you.

[Trebuchet]

The enviorment is a big factor as well at the moment. While everyone in this world is thinking how they can protect this planet M$ bring out an OS that requires everyone to buy new machines which in turn adds to global warming effect. I know this sounds stupid but its true.It sounds stupid mostly because it is. New computers cause global warming? :rolleyes:

Intel Core 2 Duo processors use less power and run cooler than Pentium 4's. The power required to run an LCD is about one-third of that required for a CRT with the same screen area, meaning my new 21" widescreen uses considerably less juice than my old 19" CRT. In addition, the amount of heat generated by an LCD monitor is considerably less than a CRT monitor, resulting in a lower load on air conditioning. Again, less power needed.

Last time I looked, Bill Gates wasn't holding a gun to anyone's head which "requires everyone to buy new machines." I can't help but notice we're in a Linux forum, not in prison complaining about the Microsoft dictatorship. Nobody "has" to even own a computer - Humanity got by just fine without them for at least a million years. Billions of living humans still don't have one yet; and I'm not going to begrudge those people the right to get one when they can afford it simply because I've got mine.

[Nikron]

It sounds stupid mostly because it is. New computers cause global warming? :rolleyes:

Intel Core 2 Duo processors use less power and run cooler than Pentium 4's. The power required to run an LCD is about one-third of that required for a CRT with the same screen area, meaning my new 21" widescreen uses considerably less juice than my old 19" CRT. In addition, the amount of heat generated by an LCD monitor is considerably less than a CRT monitor, resulting in a lower load on air conditioning. Again, less power needed.

Last time I looked, Bill Gates wasn't holding a gun to anyone's head which "requires everyone to buy new machines." I can't help but notice we're in a Linux forum, not in prison complaining about the Microsoft dictatorship. Nobody "has" to even own a computer - Humanity got by just fine without them for at least a million years. Billions of living humans still don't have one yet; and I'm not going to begrudge those people the right to get one when they can afford it simply because I've got mine.

Funny thing is, new computers do cause global warming. Infact, anything that vaguely raises GDP usually indirectly/directly causes global warming. Honestly, I have respect for Bill Gates, because of his foundation mostly. I would have a huge problem if DRM if piracy and illegal downloading wasn't so rampant. But let's face it, content industrys are losing tons of money because of piracy..

[3rdalbum]

Global warming isn't caused by human factors anyway, but if it was, the manufacture of new computers would cause a lot of it.

[Malac]

Global warming isn't caused by human factors anyway
Where did you get that from, it's completely inaccurate and the sort of ill-informed twaddle that allows America and others to ignore the fact that they are causing the CO2 emissions to go up in the last 100 years by a over third of what they should be to their highest level for 600,000 years.
Somewhere in the region of 382 parts per million, compared to 280 parts per million.

[steven8]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070201/ts_nm/globalwarming_certainty_dc_2

UN panel report says humans likely to be cause of warning. Unfortunately, it is so easy to ''explain away' what we do so we don't have to be burdened with it. It's human nature to do so, but it still doesn't give us the right to treat our world like our own personal garbage can.

[Trebuchet]

Where did you get that from, it's completely inaccurate and the sort of ill-informed twaddle that allows America and others to ignore the fact that they are causing the CO2 emissions to go up in the last 100 years by a over third of what they should be to their highest level for 600,000 years.
Somewhere in the region of 382 parts per million, compared to 280 parts per million.Not everyone agrees, and CO2 is hardly the only greenhouse gas.

"The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]

[marx2k]

Not everyone agrees, and CO2 is hardly the only greenhouse gas.

"The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]

You can keep denying it until you are blue in the face ... because your city is under water.

[AlphaMack]

:roll:

[Malac]

Not everyone agrees, and CO2 is hardly the only greenhouse gas.
No it isn't the only one but as most of the others are man-made (CFC's, etc.), I rest my case. :)

[Trebuchet]

You can keep denying it until you are blue in the face ... because your city is under water.Dude, I live in El Paso (Elevation 3762 feet). Global warming is just part of my nefarious scheme to take back America by drowning all those liberal cities on the coasts. Sorry about flooding San Jose, but it was the only way I could take out Redmond.

;)

[steven8]

If you can take out Redmond, I'll be in your corner.