Buy Vista or Else

theodp writes "Upgrade or keep crashing was the tagline when Windows XP was introduced. So how will Windows Vista be marketed? 'I'd hate to see something bad happen to your PC,' seems to be one pitch. Even if new features won't get you to upgrade to Vista, you should buy Vista for the security, urged Windows Chief Jim Allchin. Are commercials featuring Tony Soprano next? Bada Bing!"

Security

[Fusen]

Who's to say Vista will be secure? Surely from past experience its safer to use XP which has had numerous security patches then a whole new OS with thousands of vulnerabilities to be found

Re:Security

[CyricZ]

And beyond that it's probably safer to use something like OpenBSD instead of XP. It not only has a far more stable and secure base, but it also has far stricter security-wise development policies, and apparently more thorough code audits.

Re:Security

[Blakey Rat]

And it only takes 4 days to get your video capture card working, that is, if you can manage it at all!

No thanks. I'll trade a little bit of security for a computer I can actually *use to do things with.*

Re:Security

[Jezza]

Blakey Rat said: "And it only takes 4 days to get your video capture card working, that is, if you can manage it at all!"

Sure, but at least it won't get a Virus and send a picture of you in your undercrackers to Paris Hilton's cell phone. :-)

Re:Security

[zootm]

It's based on BSD, yes. So's OpenBSD. Vista and XP, similarly, are based on the same thing. The basis is not the point here.

Re:Security

[zootm]

You misunderstand, sorry my wording was ambiguous. OpenBSD and OSX have the same roots, XP and Vista have the same roots, was my point. The point that the article was trying to get across is that these two systems with the same roots have different characteristics in terms of security, which is also the case with OSX and OpenBSD. Of course, I'm not saying that OSX is as insecure as XP, however.

Re:Security

[zootm]

Vista bogged down to the eyeballs with the latest microsoft drm is likely to be a pretty bad release as they again use their customers to bug test this new "er" feature.

I sincerely hope you're wrong about that, but I fear you're probably right. My hope is the fact that they're calling the feature "optional" will allow me to get away (since I don't intend on using DRMed media), but it might lead to more widespread adoption of such nonsense technology.

Re:Security

[CyricZ]

The parent poster was saying that Mac OS X was based on BSD, which it is. Mach was derived from BSD, and Mac OS X builds upon Mach. Of course, it also integrates code from the other BSDs, which tend to use code from each other, too.

At one point there was a BSD-derived networking stack included with Windows. However, it is reported these days that a new implementation was written.

Re:Security

[arminw]

....websites from my school's macs that completely deny mac access.....

Turn on the Safari debug menu and get Safari to lie to the offending website. It may display screwy, but it will get you in every time.

Re:Security

[Blakey Rat]

Hm. Let's see... installing my Hauppauge card and Sage TV took approximately two hours on Windows, and that includes all the time I spent setting preferences. Oh, and it all worked on the first try.

I spent over 16 hours *attempting* to install IVTV (the "official" Linux drivers for the Hauppauge capture cards) before giving up.

During this period of time, I had help from two Linux experts. The best output I ever got from the cat was a postage-stamp-size mpeg2 movie with no sound and no way to change the c

Re:Security

[bowlingfreak]

You get stuff like this on both sides. Here's mine.
I built 2 64bit AMD boxes, and purchased WinXP X64 for both. I figured one would be a Win box for my wife, the other would be dual boot, Win for games, Fedora Core 4 for development.
I spent about 2 weeks finding and downloading drivers for the Windows installs. Everything on the motherboard (including 1Gb network card), the DVD RW, video card...
I was ALMOST afraid of putting Fedora Core 4 64bit on it, but figured I could get it working with some work. So in

Re:Security

[Blakey Rat]

1) Two hours is about right for setting up a PVR. That's how long it took to set up my parent's Dish Network PVR, more or less.

2) The computer didn't freeze, and it wasn't a hardware error. (The hardware works flawlessly in Windows.) It was the TV viewer application that froze.

3) Hauppauge cards don't work on OS X. But at least OS X doesn't *claim* that they do, unlike SUSE.

Re:Security

[rtb61]

It's a trick when installing windows any version. You must install the drivers in the correct order, no matter what the instructions say, you must reboot between each and every software driver install. Other tricks are, add new hardware, do a complete re-install (clears up the build up of errors in the reigistry which can really stuff up new driver installs).

The other thing don't install any other sofwtare until you have completed all the hardware driver installs and applied all the windows patches. Slips

Re:Security

[Anonymous Coward]

"And beyond that it's probably safer to use something like OpenBSD instead of XP."

I mean, seriously, just who is your post directed too? I can tell my clients: Use Firefox instead of IE, I sometimes tell them use OSX instead of XP. I even see situations where I might suggest Linux over XP or OSX.

But for the life of me, I don't ever ever see a situation where I go: " Yeah!, use BSD - it's a viable alternative to XP or OSX".

Re:Security

[CyricZ]

OpenBSD is a great system for secretaries and people in a finance department, for instance.

I worked at one firm that was having problems with the computer systems their secretaries and finance department were using. Many of the workers would play games, or worse, they'd manage to infect the existing Windows XP systems with spyware.

Considering they were doing basic word processing, spreadsheet and web-based data entry tasks, we decided that Windows XP was excessive. OpenBSD, OpenOffice, and Konqueror would be sufficient.

The main benefit was that the systems just plain didn't get infected with viruses, spyware, and some such software. The price was a big benefit, too. And the ignorance of the general staff towards OpenBSD, and UNIX in general, helped. Instead of playing games and chatting, the employees had little to do but work. Productivity rose significantly within the weeks after switching over to OpenBSD.

Re:Seamless switch?

[CyricZ]

KDE can be easily configured to be quite Windows-like. Many people didn't even notice, to be quite honest. We did our best to make the transition as seamless as possible, and we managed to do that well.

We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference.

We imported the Word templates and Excel spreadsheets they were using, tested them out with the OpenOffice equivalents, and for the most part they worked. The one problem we ran into was the font on the standard company letterhead was a bit too large under OpenOffice. That took about a second or so to remedy, of course.

When they asked about the games and MSN, they were simply told that they were deleted.

A little bit of preparation, forethought, and the use of quality software lead to a transition that went very well.

Re:Seamless switch?

[sd_diamond]

We labelled the OpenOffice Writer icon as "Microsoft Word", for instance, and people didn't know the difference.

We need to talk.

--Sincerely,
Microsoft Legal Dept.

Not just social problems, my friend.

[CyricZ]

You didn't read my post. While the game playing was indeed a social problem, the malware problem was an even more significant technical issue.

It was indeed the higher security of OpenBSD, Konqueror, and the other software we used that helped improve the problem of malware. Blame it on the popularity of Windows all that you want; since the transition, we have not had to go back and clean up an infected system yet.

You must not have worked in a real office of any significant size. Policy rules like you suggest

Re:Security

[kuzelnik]

Well ...
FreeBSD *is* viable alternative to XP.
Today I have even installed Windows-only Tutenstein game from kids.discovery.com on it for my little daughter using wine. A few days ago I have installed Linux binary Fentun to open winmail.dat file I have received form an Outlook/Exchange user.

FreeBSD has more then 14000 ports available.

It has got everything an ordinary user needs.
Office, mail, browsers, chat, much greater number of supported media files than most Linux distros ...

I know, It is comon belief FreeBSD is more difficult to install than XP.
Well, Joe Sixpack isn't able to install Windows either.
And tell me, how many users can remove dozens of malware, viruses, rootkits and other unwanted crappy applications from Windows?

You install FreeBSD for a non-technical user once, and you do not have to come back to clean it up.

Re:Security

[utlemming]

I know that the Slashdot crowd has mixed feelings about VMware, but honestly, I am a huge fan of it. VMware is what allowed me to switch from Windows to Linux, while keeping the programs that I need for school, and keep my wife happy. Further, I can run a different Windows for whatever the different need may be. For example, I have one Windows for personal use, work, school, security/spyware/malware research, Windows Server 2003, Windows 98, an Oracle enviroment, FreeBSD, and several different Linux bases installed. Before I made the leap, I tried VMware in Windows, and decided that it was a viable alternative and then made the conversion to Linux. The great thing about running Windows under Linux is that I have not had any spyware problems since converting, nor virus problems -- probably because I surf the internet and do email under Linux as opposed to Windows. The downside to this approach is that it 1) Expensive, VMware cost $189 for Linux, but they do give you a 30-day license; 2.) You have to have a lot of memory in order to get the full benefit. 3.) You still need a license for Windows. However, I get better performance for my Windows installations under Linux than I did with a native Windows installation. And then you can do snapshots and other features. Even if you manage to hose your Linux installation, short of deleting your virtual machine files, your virtual machines are safe.

Anyhow, the point of the post, is that if you seriously would like to be able to migrate away from Windows, and need to be able to maintain compatablilty, then look at VMware. Unlike some of the other virtualization solutions, VMware is extremely professional, polished, and does a slick job. I am the president of a Linux and Unix User group and we distribute VMware disk images for use in VMPlayer (which is free) to help people get farmiliar with Linux. The quaility of VMware is such that after using a beta release for two months I couldn't help but buy it after the beta expired -- their beta was so professional, I was really impressed.

And no, I don't work for VMware.

Re:Security

[LiquidCoooled]

I would say if the codebase is entirely new, the chances of making the same mistakes again would be lower.
What worries me more about rebuilding any codebase is the possibility of introducing whole new categories of bugs.

Re:Security

[advocate_one]

we know the codebase is NOT new... because the first security update for the beta was for the .wmf vulnerability... who knows what other nightmares are still ticking away in it.

Re:Security

[acidblood]

The .WMF vulnerability is, as I understand, the result of poor design, not an implementation problem like a buffer overflow. Given the same API, the Wine project wrote an independent implementation which was also vulnerable. So if Vista has the same vulnerability, that says nothing about whether they used the same code from XP.

Re:Security

[Overly Critical Guy]

It's so frustrating sometimes that so many posters on Slashdot continue to be misinformed about things that are common knowledge in the tech world.

Vista had the same flaw because it's got the same Win32 code. Vista is not a rewrite of Windows. It's based off the Windows 2003 code, which was based off XP. It's the same Windows as before but with some new rushed 1.0 APIs for hackers to crack. WinFX is just a layer on top of Win32. It's the same Win32 Windows we've known all along with some internal updat

Not even the same code lines

[charnov]

You do realize that the Win95, etc. core and the NT cores aren't even from the same code lines?

Nice FUD, though...

Re:Security

[bender647]

TFA describes many ways in which Vista will be more secure by design than the security-patched XP. For example, more attention to user privileges, sandboxing IE, a firewall that looks at outgoing traffic, integrated spyware checking.

I could pretty much care less about Vista until the games I want to play won't run on anything else, but you can't doubt that M$ will be paying more attention to security in the fundamental design of Vista than they did in XP.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Security

[masklinn]

I think you could extend that to "if you want security you must never run any executable file that didn't come with your OS outside of a VM sandbox".

Anything that can be executed is a security threat. Random executables received from mails with "3bl4rg3 yu0r p3n1s" more than others, but few softwares actually have a bug/issue count of 0.

Re:Security

[Coryoth]

I think you could extend that to "if you want security you must never run any executable file that didn't come with your OS outside of a VM sandbox".

Anything that can be executed is a security threat. Random executables received from mails with "3bl4rg3 yu0r p3n1s" more than others, but few softwares actually have a bug/issue count of 0.

There are things that can be done that allow for significant improvement over the current situation. The only catch is that it requires significant change to the base system

Re:Security

[Kjella]

Who's to say Vista will be secure?

Well, I assume it'll be more secure against you. It is pure doublespeak because it has nothing to do with user security and everything to do with content security. But I assume they'll try to market it as "security", because everyone wants security right?

Re:Security

[joNDoty]

That's a great point, parent. Security is a worse pitch than reliability because security can only be proven post-release. XP is pretty damn reliable IMHO. So all MS can tout is new features... and finally, a convincing reason for the common man to purchase really expensive hardware!

Re:Security

[HalAtWork]

That was exactly my reasoning for staying with Windows 2000 while Windows XP was being introduced. When I saw that I was right, and how bad XP really was, I decided to just move to Linux and have been happy ever since.

Previously my attempts to move to Linux had been unsuccessful because I had problems getting certain hardware working (video capture, RAID) and was concerned about what software would be available (certain emulators I had grown fond of, video codecs, VirtualDub and other transcoding software), but even Windows 2000 was giving me some problems, such as booting into a blue screen telling me my registry had become corrupt, and also actually getting infected by viruses such as Blaster.

I had everything up to date, all patched up, antivirus installed, etc, but still contracted the virus. A few reinstalls later and I just figured it wasn't worth it putting up with all the headaches.

When I started running Linux, I quickly saw the advantages... Installing software didn't require the usual "Next, Next, uncheck every checkbox, delete desktop and quicklaunch icons, uninstall additional software installed along with the software I actually wanted, check for hidden startup items, make sure program doesn't phone home", when I started my PC I wasn't greeted by millions of splash screens, applications that couldn't make a connection popping up and letting me know, I didn't have to readjust settings that kept resetting for some reason (volume levels, icon positions on the quicklaunch)... GNU/Linux is about using your PC and not just working around problems to get what you want... and then I realized that upon discovering all this I didn't even have to worry about viruses at all, and I had no problems with crashes at all! Even if programs didn't behave in a way I expected I found it simple to find solutions, the error messages meant something and I could see exceptions thrown if I launched an application from a terminal, etc...

Re:Security

[masklinn]

Server admins usually don't execute the files attached to the random mails they receive from unknown sources on the servers.

In fact, server admins (or knowledgeable IT guys un general) don't execute the files attached to the mail they receive unless they need to execute them, and it comes from a trusted source, and the AV didn't find anything when scanning the file.

And the truly paranoids execute said files in virtual instances (e.g. a junk VMWare session that'll be trashed immediately after that)

linux? OS X?

[joe 155]

maybe they should say "upgrade to linux for the security" (or macOS X)... Vista seems to be offering very little in terms of features, and will offer little else in terms of security, partly people go for it because it's what most people use, and partly because M$ just doesn't take security seriously enough... they need to have a root and branch change of how the OS is designed to give a greater emphasis on security instead of useless visual tweaks.

Re:linux? OS X?

[Kevbo]

I think Apple is already doing this. They may not be running specific ads saying that they offer better security than Windows (at least, I have never seen any) but I am always hearing about how Mac never gets any viruses, exploits, etc from friends, reporters, Mac salesman...
It may be underground marketing, but it is still marketing.

Re:linux? OS X?

[Feyr]

mac doesnt get viruses because it's not worth the time to write one

but a mac is still more secure than windows. it has a proper (DEFAULT) security model for one. here's hoping vista will have it too.

also, it doesn't run (as far as i remember) all of the useless services windows run, and there isn't as much badly designed backward compatibility cruft by default (SMB anyone?).

im not saying you can't make macosx insecure, but at least it is by default... more than windows in any case (don't forget to patch)

Re:linux? OS X?

[undeadly]

mac doesnt get viruses because it's not worth the time to write one

Mostly because it's harder to write an effective virus for Mac OS X, along with availability of hardware to test assembly code. I wonder if we'll see more viruses popping up with Apple moving to Intel CPU's and machines that may run Windows.

but a mac is still more secure than windows. it has a proper (DEFAULT) security model for one. here's hoping vista will have it too.

Yeah, one of the reasons why there are so few virii targetti

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The problem is implementation rather than design

[Colin Smith]

Start shipping installs secured from the start. Require an admin/install user account for new system wide applications, sandbox user installed software in their home directory/profile. Users then don't trash everything when they fubar their profile or homedir. Windows has all the necessary features to do it, It's had them since the first versions of NT.

Microsoft frankly can't be arsed and there's no profit in a secured system when they can instead continually be selling you upgrades as security fixes.

It isn't rocket science, it's just segregation of responsibility. Unix has been doing it for 30 years. No wait, it must be closer to 35 now.

 

Re:The problem is implementation rather than desig

[ajs318]

..... And by requiring all that, you immediately nullify one of the chief "advantages" of Windows. That is, the ability just to turn on a computer and start using it, without identifying yourself or otherwise taking notice of it. You don't get a screenful of diagnostic messages ending with a bunch of green [OK]s while Windows is booting up, "in case that might confuse the poor user". {As a full-time Linux user who has had to attempt to fix a Windows box, I can say that not having those messages is way more inconvenient for the technician than having them is inconvenient for the user. Users can just ignore them, after all. On that logic, maybe we should start building cars where the oil pressure and alternator warning lights don't come on when you first turn on the ignition.} The default privilege level is administrator; but unlike root on a unix system, there are certain actions that are blocked from even an administrator on a Windows system.

I think Windows with passwords is going to be a bit like a pale imitation of KDE.

Re:linux? OS X?

[DaHat]

Vista seems to be offering very little in terms of features

Lemme guess... you are basing that solely on what you've read on /.?

Allow me to list a few features coming in Vista that I am looking forward to:

• Application level audio control
• Application specific remoting
• Vastly improved networking stack (apparently superior to any other OS's)
• Support for user mode drivers
• New printer technology (way beyond postscript)
• Pluggable crypto system

Take a look at this MSN Spaces post [msn.com] which has some links to some videos on some of these improvements and more on Channel 9 [msdn.com].

Re:linux? OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

While per-application audio control (I can't wait to be able to turn down my games and turn up teamspeak) and a new networking stack sound nice, remoting a single application has always been possible through netmeeting or with stuff like citrix. User mode drivers have been around for a while in other operating systems (libusb, libsane, various user mode filesystem drivers, etc). Not sure what a "pluggable crypto system" is but linux has had a good number of kernel crypto modules for a long time now for va

Re:linux? OS X?

[Rosyna]

Per application audio control? Like Detour [rogueamoeba.com] on OS X? (All audio streams are per app but this lets you have fine control over them).

Re:linux? OS X?

[Blakey Rat]

The new video subsystem is also going to allow you to zoom in on different applications at different levels-- no more squinting to read that 8-point text on your 1440x1280 15" laptop monitor!

Re:linux? OS X?

[pherthyl]

*sigh*
Why does everyone continue to buy into this BS? Point sizes have absolutely nothing to do with your screen resolution if your display is set up correctly. An 8pt font should be the same size whether your res is 1024 or 1600x1200. If you're having trouble reading text on a high res screen, do this: on windows:
display properties, settings, advanced, then choose custom setting and adjust the ruler until the distance displayed is correct. Reboot.
On Linux, set the DisplaySize (or something like that, I

Re:linux? OS X?

[PCM2]

Agreed. I saw Allchin's latest Vista demo and I walked away for it confident that I will, under no uncertain terms, be buying a new laptop in early 2007 to run Vista on.

There's lots of things in Vista that nobody has even started talking about yet, particularly in the area of mobility.

- Laptops will start shipping with a secondary LCD screen that's accessible when the machine is closed. So you will be able to do things like checking the status of your e-mail, IM, stocks, weather, whatever -- without taking

Re:linux? OS X?

[dangitman]

Just find the projector and route PowerPoint through it.

But wouldn't someone then stab you to death for using Powerpoint? I don't see the advantage in being dead.

Re:linux? OS X?

[spitzak]

- A secondary LCD screen that offers limited, PDA-like functionality while the main OS is in Suspend. How would you do that with XP? Or Linux? It's not anything you can write in user mode.

What the hell are you talking about. That LCD would be a *second screen*. Windows as-is already supports multiple screens, so add a driver for the LCD! I don't consider that a change to the OS. A slight change so that the user can make a program go to that screen without dragging it is, I guess, a change to the OS, but har

Re:linux? OS X?

[ratboy666]

I want to comment on some of the features you list:

"New printer technology (way beyond postscript)"

This is interesting. What could be "way beyond Postscript"? Postscript is a general purpose language, with rendering support. It has even been extended into a GUI (although that is irrelevant from the perspective of printing). By utilizing a common language for print rendering, different vendor OSs and systems can actually share printers. The reference implementation of Postscript is now (arguably) Ghostscript, which is Open Source. Postscript is also behind PDF technology.

If there is a new rendering technology, how will it be incorporated into heterogenous network?

"Support for user mode drivers"

Is this a good thing? I know that there have been attempts at providing "user mode drivers" to Linux, and other OSs, but that is a REALLY BAD thing to do wrt security. Transitions from less trusted code to more trusted code are ok, because the more trusted code can check its inputs. The reverse transition is not ok -- simply because the code is less trusted.

Of course the "user mode driver" may require signing, but then why not test it and put it back into kernel mode? The only other reason I can see for "user mode drivers" is that you want the driver code and data to participate in standard OS semantics (scheduling, swapping, etc.). Which may be a good reason to do it. But the security implications are immense: maybe front layer drivers only, that cannot do anything with the OS core or data, and where data only flows "user->user driver->kernel" -- you get the idea.

Still, I was under the impression that Windows was a micro-kernel (in some sense), which is supposed to eliminate the need for this hack.

"Application level audio control"

Can you elaborate on this? I was under the impression that that was ALREADY a feature (or are you referring to OS control on the application audio, which is more interesting - specifically, the ability to route the audio output from an application to another application which can provide filtering: say, low-pass. Of course, this provides a security hole for the media, and so I doubt that this will be implemented).

The other features will be welcome.

Ratboy.

Re:linux? OS X?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Congratulations, you've discovered several of the little men behind the curtains. In particular, the "new printer technology" is in order to break CUPS and Samba based compatibility Windows printing. I'm sure they'll "embrace and extend" parts of them, but I'm also convinced they'll deliberately make them incompatible with existing tools in the process.

Second, the "user mode drivers" have a rather obvious use: coupled with the plans for "trusted computing" style authentication of software, they provide a ro

quote?

[Prong_Thunder]

"nice computer you got here... be a shame if it crashed...."

People actually pay for articles like this

[heinousjay]

This is all about anti-Microsoft masturbatory geekspasms, right? Let the games begin:

Yeah, Winblows security? They haven't reimplemented enough of Unix to be secure yet.
  - or -
Sure, it's secure - it can't be pwned when the new RSOD feature is active.

Well, I've shot my wad.

Re:People actually pay for articles like this

[ScrewMaster]

One of the quality assurance guys at work claims to receive "bugasms" when he finds a particularly juicy one.

Secure?

[SpasticWeasel]

From TFA: "People Near Me" feature, which searches over a Wi-Fi connection for other Vista users nearby and then sets up a peer-to-peer network with them. Yeah, that sounds pretty secure. Same old Microsoft.

Re:Secure?

[PCM2]

If this is the Windows Collaboration feature they're talking about, then it doesn't automatically connect everybody. You can invite the people you choose. And it's not a peer to peer filesharing network or even a standard Windows network. It's a Groove-like system that allows you to share files and screen real estate among the connected peers. So if you're showing a presentation from your laptop, you can let me connect to your projector using your laptop over the network and show my presentation from my hard drive, using your screen in a sense. I can also push the same file to everybody in the ad hoc "network" so that they can view it. Optionally I can also send them a copy of the file, but I don't have to... that kind of thing. It's actually pretty neat.

Or we will shoot this dog

[HeavyMS]

The link to rule them all :
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Windowsvistamar keting.jpg [uncyclopedia.org]

Re:Or we will shoot this dog

[plopez]

National Lampoon had a magazine cover like this in the 70's, the caption, IIRC, was 'Buy this magazine or we shoot this dog'.

Re:Or we will shoot this dog

[jb.hl.com]

Yes. *claps* That was the joke.

Anything else that's stunningly obvious for us? Anything juicy about bears or the Pope that we might already know about?

Upgrade!

[Jane_Dozey]

Or we'll send Balmer around with this chair...

Lost trust

[PornMaster]

I'm all for upgrading things to newer versions to enhance security. Secure by design should be the default, and if someone fessed up and said, "Hey, we fucked up last time, but we got it right this time", and could be trusted, then it wouldn't be extortionist of them to try this.

But we've all seen how Trustworthy Computing didn't really change things. New products came through that obviously weren't vetted, and plenty of legacy problems remained. I don't know who's really going to buy Vista because they'll believe the security "threat" perpetuated by MS.

Re:Lost trust

[GigsVT]

if someone fessed up and said, "Hey, we fucked up last time, but we got it right this time", and could be trusted

The problem isn't that no one says this, it's that they've been saying it about every version since Windows 95. They constantly spread FUD about using their old versions so that people will upgrade.

MS aren't the only people guilty of this though. Every try to ask for help on a slightly older version of an open source application? You'll most likely get 10 people bashing you for running a versi

Re:Lost trust

[PornMaster]

I've not seen Microsoft admit fault with previous versions, they just say that the new ones are better. There's no contrition. And I *did* specify "and be trusted".

That said, XP *has* been considerably more stable than 9x, as they said it would be...

It could get worse?

[kamikaze2112]

'I'd hate to see something bad happen to your PC'

Jeez, if it's alredy got windows on it, how much worse can it possibly get?? *ducks*

Re:It could get worse?

[pvt_medic]

you guys are all so critical Microsoft products dont suck, they are now making vacuum cleaners.

Vista will not be secure

[Tufriast]

There are already holes in Vista that were revealed with Microsoft's latest patch. If they keep rehashing a lot of the same coding mistakes, then there is no stopping threats. Vista will flop, and be just as buggy as the current version of Windows, and if you do not buy a new computer - well, we all remember Windows ME.
So, try out MacOS X, or Mepis Linux.

The jokes keep on coming.

[TubeSteak]

Buy Vista... or someone might throw a chair at you.

In Soviet Russa, Windows Vista pays you protection money

Take your pick folks, I'll be here till Sunday.

Re:The jokes keep on coming.

[jcupitt65]

Upgrade to Windows Vista because, thanks to XP product activation, we know where you live.

I knew it!

[Ardeocalidus]

As long as I don't find my computer's monitor in my bed, I'm not upgrading.

Talking out of both sides of his mouth

[Dekortage]

"Even if they are not into home entertainment or in any of the specialty areas, they are just going to feel safer and more secure by using it."

"...[Alchin] demonstrated a collaboration tool that uses a "People Near Me" feature, which searches over a Wi-Fi connection for other Vista users nearby and then sets up a peer-to-peer network with them."

Your computer must be more secure -- it can automatically network wirelessly with other computers to share your files.

Its your choice

[gsfprez]

no one on earth is forcing an IT, CIO, homemaker, graphic artist, gamer or anyone else to HAVE TO BUY Micro Soft's shit.

I have for the last two years officially told people - i cannot and will not help you if you are running Windows. I am too busy accomplishing things (photography, videographic analysis) to be bothered with tools that do not just work. I don't care that there are millions of Windows viruses, i don't care if your webpage doens't work with anything but IE and Active X, i just have stopped caring.

I am getting older - i have a family, and i want to create and do things which are special, and i no longer have the time nor the incination to either myself, or have to deal with others who's job it is to spend all day and night defending computers from themselves. I am the architect who doesn't want to deal with the knock-off cheap Chinese crap powertools and hear all the workers bitch about them, or hear about the foreman that tells me i have to keep taking apart all the power tools and putting them back together again... build the fscking house - go get the tools that WORK - and pay more for them if you have to.

The simple fact is - its totally irrelevant to me if a Mac costs $1000 or $3000. If it does what i need - and prevents me from having to fix my tool all day long - the $3000 tool will be far more vaulable in just a week or two. Theoretical, imaginary, or otherwise fantasmic notions that Macs are just as insecure as Windows are irrelevant to me - i work today, and i work now. (well, its saturday, i'm only working a few hours today).

But the flip side of that is - i no longer give a shit what anyone uses. I don't care. Do not bother me or hassle me or get in my way if you can't keep up with me. My friends and family no longer bother me - i bought my family Mac minis, and my friends are all switching.

The world uses Windows?? I'm fscking George Bush of the Mac - i don't give a shit if every person on earth said "jump off this cliff, its the industry standard"

i'm not a lemming - i have things to get done. Whatever you want to do is fine with me, you're out of my "circle of give a shit".

You run Windows. I'm getting things done.

Re:Its your choice

[Anonymous Poodle]

You should trademark "circle of give a shit" and "You run Windows--I'm getting things done." and sell them back to Apple. Seriously.

I'm in the same boat--After spending 20+years eating, sleeping and breathing computers, and acting as the reisident expert in my family/circle of friends/global village/whatever, I no longer support/advise/provide a shoulder to cry on for any one I know who uses a PC. I switched as many family members as possible over to iMacs, and so I now no longer get those late night calls (my screen is blue, what do I do?).

I now claim total ignorance of all things PC, so when someone asks me "is this $399 laptop from Costco a good computer?", I tell them to buy a Mac, 'cause it's all I know. I also tell them to make sure they buy an extended warranty , because they will Sure Need It.

I view the legions of unofficial Windows Support Staff--your Brother-in -law, neighbor, whoever--as part of the hidden cost of running crappy software.

Shiny shiny!

[vga_init]

I think screenshots will be the selling point for most people.

Re:Shiny shiny!

[Anonymous Poodle]

They sold me--I can't wait to install it on my new MacBook . . . . .

Upgrade or keep crashing

[Stan Vassilev]

Microsoft designed the 9x with the clear conscience that it's not as stable as its NT platform.

Why was it developed? Compatibility. People wouldn't really drop all their DOS and Windows 3.11 programs, so 9x was the bridge that allowed the smooth transition that ultimately brought the consumer to the NT platform.

The plain logic basically was "we have the better platform, but you want compatibility, so here's a compromise".

Now that 16-bit is a thing of the past, the DOS layer could be removed ultimately resulting in a fully 32-bit protected environment that is Win 2000 and XP. Is Microsoft to blame they sell XP as more stable OS?

Could they have success with any other strategy? I'd say unlikely.

Vista is the next step in improving security and it took a lot of effort to develop this OS, the entire submission is a flamebait: if you were Microsoft, would you work 6 years on a new product and give it for free? Yes, imagine, you have to pay for the updates, and yes the purpose of updating is improved security, new features and modern hardware support.

Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to upgrade. It just does its best to demonstrate the benefits of its latest offering, because this is what software companies do with new releases.

Now get over it, and stop ranting.

Re:Upgrade or keep crashing

[jimicus]

Vista is the next step in improving security and it took a lot of effort to develop this OS, the entire submission is a flamebait: if you were Microsoft, would you work 6 years on a new product and give it for free?

Why not? Linus Torvalds did ;)

All joking aside, I agree with you insofar as no-one's giving away major upgrades to commercial operating systems. But you've sidestepped the issue which was first raised by Douglas Adams in 1995 and AFAICT still exists:

"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all his customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who by peddling second-hand, second-rate technology, led them all into it in the first place."

Yes, they charge for it. However...

[ScentCone]

Would you tell someone to stick with a several-flavors-ago version of your favorite distro, or to keep using Firefox 1.0? Yes, yes, free, all free blah blah blah. Believe it or not, the +/-$100 just ain't that big a deal for a lot of people, but the disruption of an upgrade (to the O/S or a significant app) is frequently the thing that puts the brakes on.

So... for most people (no, not slashdot readers), this will just happen as a new machine rotates into their life anyway. For a lot of users, "Oooh! Shiny!" is a reason to spend +/-$100. But upgrades are disruptive for people (not slashdotters) who don't actively like doing them, and the Grandma You've Talked Into Using Mandrake Who Probably Should Be Using Mandriva vX.whatever Which Means New Hardware And That Means While We're At It Let's Change Some Apps scenario is just as ugly. Never mind the dollars.

Of course...

[nwbvt]

...if Microsoft ignored security in Vista, /. would have an article about how unconcerned they seem to be about it.

I guess this is why MS doesn't listen to /. for advice on how to build their new product.

Microsoft to support file sharing?

[black hole sun]

I found this little bit of info fascinating:

In particular, he demonstrated a collaboration tool that uses a "People Near Me" feature, which searches over a Wi-Fi connection for other Vista users nearby and then sets up a peer-to-peer network with them. The tool is meant mostly to enable laptop users to share applications and files, among other things.

So Microsoft is, in effect, creating its own file sharing network? I wonder how the *AA will react?

Re:Microsoft to support file sharing?

[idonthack]

It's not really a "file-sharing network" as you imagine it to be, it just hooks up the computers with Wi-Fi. If you had a bunch of ethernet cables and a hub you could do the same thing.

Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux

[kai.chan]

With the advent of the iPod, I already know of a few people who are considering a Mac as their next purchase -- the everyday Joe who would have never considered a Mac before. With more game and application developer support on the Macs, I think Apple has the ability to eat a large chunk of the Desktop OS market during the switch from XP to Vista. If Guild Wars, Counter Strike Source, and Spore get a Mac release, I'd certainly be one to get a Mac. It would also make my decision between Linux or Mac a bit easier.

Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I've been saying this for the past month. The Ipod has given Apple an image of value. Apple is cool.

Just say it. Apple... You think cool, sleek, well designed, pretty, elite, hip, trendy...

Now say Microsoft... You think Buggy, Bland, Unrealiable, spyware, virii, adware, trojans, security holes, ugly ui, boring, and the biggest thing is... NOTHIng HAS CHANGED.

When you think of Microsoft, you realize that nothing has really improved. Think of their media player? Media Player Classic is better. Think of IE...

Re:Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux

[King_TJ]

Well, first off, the current market penetration of Macs is more like 5-6% right now, not 3-4%. But I realize that's basically splitting hairs. I get your point, and I tend to agree. But with Apple moving to Intel processors on new Macs, it seems like a lot of new possibilities may open up.

Microsoft, for example, currently owns and sells "VirtualPC" - which is pretty much the only way a Mac user can install and run Windows on a Mac. But with new Macs being Intel-based, it seems logical Microsoft might up

Buy Vista or Else....

[kgutter]

How will they market vista ? , well first thing they will do is stop supporting XP, and when the new vulnerability comes up , both corporates and home user will have no choice but to upgrade. Security wise , i hope vista introduce newer programming model call "Advance improved Complex OLE and Advance COM and DCOM" , which BTW only virus writer and visual basic programmers understands and not C programmers. They can't implement unix security model , because than why pay for it :) I think they have also impl

Violin cases

[Zygote-IC-]

"That's a real nice desktop picture of a naked Britney Spears -- and a very nice 250gb drive full of carefully labeled and cross referenced pr0n. Hey Vito, wouldn't it be a shame if something -- ya know -- bad was to happen to it? Yeah, a real shame."

Read this or the terrorists have already won . . .

[pariahdecss]

This is nothing new . . . we live in an society (post 9-11) where everything is predicated on fear. "Buy our anti-bacterial hand soap or your kids may die!!" , "Buy this ADT security system or you are a failure as a parent" . . . marketers and the government have embraced the ubiquitous power of fear and uncertainty to sell everything from tampons to troop deployments . . .ad nausea infinitum

Personally I am more afraid of deploying Windows Vista than not, and Microsoft can stick the DRM in the orifice of their choice.

Or else what...

[panth0r]

You'll send the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths that shoot bees when the bark?

Trying to be fair about it

[TheReaperD]

Of what I have read, there will be, at least, one thing that could improve Vista's security. Also, several people have commented on it without having read anything about Vista. Users will login to a limited access user account, rather then an administrator account as the default.

Unfortunately, there are several bad points with Vista that will make me hesitate on upgrading:

1. DRM This is a big one, for me.
2. Requires a P3 800 or higher, just to run the operating system with no tangible benefit to the user.
3. Visual enhancements require Direct X 9c compatible hardware.
4. No compelling features.

A really sad commentary...

[seven of five]

MS has failed the user community when it has to say, 'don't keep running the old unsecure shit we sold you last year, buy this new shit. And trust us this time.'

I don't think your position makes any sense..

[bmajik]

Is security a binary thing? Is something secure or insecure ?

I don't think so.

I think "security" is a blend of many things.. the _correctness_ of non-security features, the selection and depth of security-focused features, the process around resolving defects (because there will be defects), and the conditions under which a user can use the machine.

Even if Microsoft had done everything they knew how to do to make XP "secure" when they had made it, would it be secure today? No. Because today new threats are understood and being used that weren't in existance when XP was designed and shipped. Is XP retroactively insecure? Or it just less secure than something newer, all things otherwise equal, that was developed with the context of the threats that have emerged since XP was released?

In the specific case of Vista vs XP, some of the things that are "better" this time around are
- more credible run-as-non-admin story
- better sandboxing and least-priviledge stuff, even within a normal user account (i.e. its not necessarily true that IE running as you can do anything you can)

The run-as-non-admin thing "worked" in XP, but with enough caveats that it was hard to credibly say "everyone, do it that way". The POR for XP was to ship with non-admin-by-default until very, very late in the ship cycle, where there was just too much stuff that didn't work as non-admin. They made the hard decisino to make users=admin by default, and nobody was happy about it. This is a problem that Microsoft has been chipping away at for a while now, because the goal is "let everyone run with as few permissions as possible" and it often conflicts with the other goal of "20 year old software written by 3rd party people needs to keep running"

I have no problem buying that Vista has more security-focused features than XP. I have no problem buying that Vista has better code correctness in non-security features than XP. I don't think the security response process will be any worse in vista, infact, i know of at least one technology that makes it better (but im not sure if its public yet?).

Will Vista be "more secure" than XP? I think so. Will it be "as secure" as OpenBSD? Probably not. Will it do more things that more users want than OpenBSD? Definiately. Will Vista have a better intersection of practical security vs functionality than OpenBSD?

Microsoft thinks so, and I think I agree with them.

Take a page from Apple

[aduzik]

It's pretty clear to me that the main reason that Windows has so many security problems is that there is something inherently broken in its design. Remember: when Microsoft first designed Windows, no one was using the Internet, office LANs were pretty much the most networking you were likely to find. So Microsoft didn't have to think about network security back then. Now that the world of computing is increasingly connected to a high-bandwidth Internet connection all the time, it's clear that the model that Windows is built upon is broken.

I think it would benefit Microsoft to do a fundamental redesign of Windows. Apple did this about five years ago when they made the transition from Classic Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. They designed an API that permitted developers to write software that ran natively on both operating systems (Carbon) and gradually phased it out in favor of an API that was completely native to Mac OS X (Cocoa). At the same time, there were many applications that would only run on Mac OS 9 -- i.e., those that were not Carbonized -- that ran in a (mostly transparent) virtualized environment. Microsoft could follow the same pattern as Apple and redesign their operating system from the ground up with security as a primary focus.

The thing that's going to get people to upgrade to Vista isn't the desktop search or any new multimedia features. It's the security and the performance. Right now, Microsoft keeps tacking on bloat after bloat to the existing Windows codebase. This has the effect of making Windows slower. Also, these "ad-hoc" additions, I think, have a tendency of opening up security holes. Microsoft, it's time for you to reevaluate the design of your operating system. Instead of focusing on devising as many different editions as you can for Vista -- which, by the way, baffles the hell out of a lot of your customers -- it's time to wipe the slate clean and start over.

I know we've all said at one point or another, "if I'd known then what I know now, I would have done things completely differently." Well, Microsoft, you do know stuff now that you didn't know 20 years ago. It's time to do things completely differently. Your model no longer works; find a new one.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

MS Has Gone Backwards Since Windows 2000

[LazloToth]

The saddest aspect of Vista's arrival, as far as I'm concerned, is that XP technology has been no improvement over Win2k Pro or Win2k Server in our company. And now we get another scary OS release from MS as the end-of-life date for 2000 products draws near. After SP4 came out for the 2000 products, the only real annoyance was the constant stream of critical updates, some of which unleashed mayhem on our network until we got a handle on update management. Otherwise, the Windows 2000 servers have been rock solid. Meanwhile, XP and Server 2003 have been insufferable turkeys, making me regret every installation. The memory leaks that have plagued Server 2003 should be getting a lot more attention than they've been getting in the tech press. I suspect Microsoft would say that hardware vendors have delivered faulty drivers, but we never saw the random crashes and reboots in Windows 2000 Server that we see in our 2003 servers. I can't trust the 2003 platform anymore - - we moved everything of importance back to Win2k. Service Pack 1 for 2003 Server was about as helpful as a broken ankle. I understand we might see SP2 in 2007. Wow, that's encouraging. Who here wants to dive for Vista? Thank the gods for Linux, Apache, and MySQL . . . .

Or,

[The Cisco Kid]

Gee, I wouldnt want anything bad to happen to your PC. You know, you really shouldnt be running Windows on that, or anything from Microsoft - you're just asked for one of around a million or so various trojan horses or other exploits that turn your PC into a spam or porn relay, steal your private data, or at best just severely cripple its performance.

Re:Slow news day

[OmegaBlac]

This is slashdot after all; if you can't get dirt on em then make it up. ;)

SECURITY!?!

[Svartalf]

When they have things like the WMF flaw in the designs (And ended up in Vista as well as XP and 2000...) they are NOT about security.

Security is by design, not as a friggin' afterthought.

This has little to do with MS bashing- it's just that MS doesn't think much about security and everyone knows it (Well, everyone but you, it seems...)

Re:SECURITY!?!

[c6gunner]

Considering that the WMF vulnarability made it into WINE, Microsoft certainly doesn't have the monopoly for accepting blame. Face it, when you're dealing with billions of lines of code, it's easy for a vulnarability to be overlooked. The only advantage Linux has over MS is the open development model. Microsoft can only hire a finite number of prgrammers to de-bug code, whereas with open development you theoreticaly have an infinite number of programmers, or rather, the every programmer alive, being able

Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur

[GigsVT]

It has little to do with the users these days. It's more about the inept application developers.

I've found a relationship (too bad slashdot doesn't do math symbols):

x = the cost of the software product that runs on Windows
y = the chance the software requires everyone using it to log in as administrator

As x -> infinity, y -> infinity

Seriously though, too much windows software, especially vertical apps or expensive commercial apps, still require every user to log in as administrator.

MS should force thi

Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur

[LocoMan]

I was reading somewhere (I think on cnet too, I'll look for the URL later) that Vista will require the admin password to do admin stuff, and won't run on admin by default. They also said they were making a list of all the software that required administrative access, and dividing them in different categories. Those that actually needed admin. access will require the password be entered before opening (or before doing the specific section that needed it).

Also it said that there are lots of apps out there tha

Also comes to mind is...

[Vorondil28]

...Ballmer.

"Fucking XP users are fucking pussies. I'm going to fucking bury them, I have done it before, and I will do it again...I'm going to fucking kill anybody that doesn't upgrade."

Re:Linux is doomed

[demon]

Linux has one problem that over-shadows all others :

* A monolithic kernel

You're kidding, right? Microsoft has pretty much gutted Cutler's NT microkernel design, what with moving so many subsystems back into the kernel and all. And OS X? It's a full fledged BSD kernel running on top of a Mach microkernel - really, a microkernel arrangement in name only. The only reason they keep it around is because Mach provides some... interesting IPC facilities, which OS X exploits heavily. Ev