'Vista': Microsoft's New Name for Windows

[dry suit diver]

and do they work better after assimilation/aquisition, some may but a lot of software house take a really good product and 'improve'it on redevelopment so it works worse than the original.

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by Garf

So?

Siebel and SAP do the same thing in the CRM world. Sage do the same thing in the Accounting World. Oracle do the same thing in the database world. such is business.

And your point is?

Hold on... you're getting upset cause I'm taking the holy name of Microsoft in vein?

Oh - and as a SVR4 Systems Administrator (HP and Siemens (and Pyramid)), MCSE, CCNE, CCSA and Oracle DBA I think I have used all of the above systems and more. You forgot JD Edwards. I thought Systems Union were the accountancy sponges?

Oh - and don't forget IBM buying Lotus / Corel / Aldus et. al.

Microsoft's software is only in the last 12 months becoming secure and configured the way it should be (locked down by default). For example, it's only recently I'd consider using Windows Server 2003 as a web server over Solaris or Apple XServe, and that's only because of contingency issues, and also they have implemented a decent load balancing algorithm.

My problem with Microsoft is that people have only been using Microsoft products because it was the easy / lazy option, but dangerous nonetheless. Easy to install, easy to run, no access issues etc.. - and that's because the default install was everyone open with no security. Most of the viruses doing the rounds now are based on the fact that their default install was inherently flawed and as such was designed that way because it made people's life easier.

I'm all for an easy life, but not one which gets attacked through the methods meant to make life easier.

[Garf]

Originally Posted by Bantam

And your point is?

Hold on... you're getting upset cause I'm taking the holy name of Microsoft in vein?

Oh - and as a SVR4 Systems Administrator (HP and Siemens (and Pyramid)), MCSE, CCNE, CCSA and Oracle DBA I think I have used all of the above systems and more. You forgot JD Edwards. I thought Systems Union were the accountancy sponges?

Oh - and don't forget IBM buying Lotus / Corel / Aldus et. al.

Microsoft's software is only in the last 12 months becoming secure and configured the way it should be (locked down by default). For example, it's only recently I'd consider using Windows Server 2003 as a web server over Solaris or Apple XServe, and that's only because of contingency issues, and also they have implemented a decent load balancing algorithm.

My problem with Microsoft is that people have only been using Microsoft products because it was the easy / lazy option, but dangerous nonetheless. Easy to install, easy to run, no access issues etc.. - and that's because the default install was everyone open with no security. Most of the viruses doing the rounds now are based on the fact that their default install was inherently flawed and as such was designed that way because it made people's life easier.

I'm all for an easy life, but not one which gets attacked through the methods meant to make life easier.

ahh no no you misunderstand me. I couldnt care less about MS either way. what bothers me is when people simply slag them off for practices which are widely performed throughout the industry by most if not all of the major players. the only thing more silly than that is criticising MS simply becuase they are successful. From a business perspective, its somewhat farcical to criticise MS. you might not like the fact that they just buy and rebrand software. you might hate that fact that their software is not secure. you might stay up all night swearing about the fact that their software is widely used through familiarity with a GUI rather than any valid technical knowledge about its functionality or security, but the simple fact is that they are just doing what everyone else does, and doing it better. From a business perspective, you just cannot argue with the bottom line.

I have endless argument with unix and linux developers, whose software is superior in just about every way in terms of both functionality and security to MS server products, but so many of them seem to miss the fact that it doesn't matter. People are buying Microsoft, and the ideals and dreams of software engineers matter not one jot compared to the turnover and net profit figures at the end of the day (or financial year at least).

do I have a point? probably not, I rarely do I can MS-Bash with the best of 'em, but I like simply taking the opposite perspective now and again to see what happens

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by Garf

ahh no no you misunderstand me. I couldnt care less about MS either way. what bothers me is when people simply slag them off for practices which are widely performed throughout the industry by most if not all of the major players. the only thing more silly than that is criticising MS simply becuase they are successful. From a business perspective, its somewhat farcical to criticise MS. you might not like the fact that they just buy and rebrand software. you might hate that fact that their software is not secure. you might stay up all night swearing about the fact that their software is widely used through familiarity with a GUI rather than any valid technical knowledge about its functionality or security, but the simple fact is that they are just doing what everyone else does, and doing it better. From a business perspective, you just cannot argue with the bottom line.

I have endless argument with unix and linux developers, whose software is superior in just about every technical way, but so many of them seem to miss the fact that it doesnt matter. People are buying Microsoft, and the ideals and dreams of software engineers matter not one jot compared to the turnover and net profit figures at the end of the day (or financial year at least).

do I have a point? probably not, I rarely do.

I see your point.

Our office is a good case in your point. All the PC's run XP SP2, they all run Office XP, most of the servers are Windows Server 2003, our E-Mail system is Exchange 2003 and our developers work in .NET, so we are indeed a Microsoft "Office".

However, we do have a couple of Apple Macs for the web developers, and for testing purposes, along with a few other little oddities (such as Nokia Firewalls etc..).

You answered the question in your answer - and it's not a financial thing - it's purely a familiarity thing. The GUI is what they trade in. From a time where there was no *real* competition. All new PC's come pre-loaded with Windows XP by default. I'm unsure of PC (apart from Apple) which you can buy at PC world which comes with anything apart from Windows OS. They have an automatic market because that is what newbie PC users get by default.

Currently, however, they're worried about their market being encroached on. Apple are stealing a march on the techno-savvy home user market. I know quite a few people who have Macs at home now - but I still have some Microsoft software loaded on it (Office:Mac 2004 and Virtual PC with XP Pro).

By the way - their next target is Anti-Virus, but to be honest I think I may be behind them on this one - after all they wrote the bloody OS so I'm sure they know the best way to cure it!

[Scuby]

Originally Posted by jamesp

He swears by Macs and reckons pc's are for doing things the hard way.

Problem will all these OS arguments is that people don't understand that not everyone uses computers in the same way.
Linux is fantastic for servers, but I still don't believe it is mature enough to end up on the PCs of inexperienced computer users - its getting closer, but there are still problems.
Macs are great for graphic design, but someone big into say computer games would struggle to get a lot of them for a mac.
Windows isn't (wasn't) the most secure (although if people didn't click "yes" to every virus that asks to download itself...), it might be considered by some to be unstable (although i've never had any software crash kills the OS for years), but its difficult to deny that Windows, on the whole, does everything for everyone. It may not be the best at everything, but it works, its perfectly usable, and if it breaks there's a lot of help and support out there available.

For me, I don't have much of a choice about using Windows. I use certain specialist software for uni work that may be windows-only, and if that software is industry standard and I can't use it then thats the biggest reason I can see to stick with Microsoft. Yes I could get various emulators under Linux, but I can't see why on earth i'd go to the trouble of putting Linux on to then run everything under a Windows Emulator - the logic escapes me!

David

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by Scuby

Macs are great for graphic design, but someone big into say computer games would struggle to get a lot of them for a mac.

Macs now are very much targetted as a home office machine. It's a Linux (Darwin) OS with a nice GUI. If you just want to do;

High Definition Video Editing (iMovieHD)
Music Jukebox Management (iTunes)
DVD Authoring (iDVD)
Digital Photo Management (iPhoto)
Music Composition (Garageband)
E-Mail (Mail)
Internet Browsing (Safari / Firefox / IE)
Home Web Server (Apache)
Word Processing / Spreadsheet (AppleWorks)

All that comes as standard out of the box with an Apple Mac. Yup - buy a £300 Mac Mini and you get all the above. You don't need to buy anything extra. They usually also bundle a load of different apps in with it too, such as a couple of games. Then if you want, you can just buy MS Office:Mac and you have the full suite including Word, Excel, Powerpoint and the Outlook replacement Entourage. There are *no* compatibility issues between mac and PC any more. I even have a Checkpoint Nokia VPN1 Client so I can connect into my firewall at work and VPN into the network.

There's a load of software now for the mac. Granted, Games are lacking, but I don't play games and neither do most people I know. Primarily I use it for Music, Web, Video and E-Mail. Most people who I know that play games'll have an X-Box or PS2 or equivalent.

Why a console? Well, the big thing with PC games (which people don't seem to grasp) is that they are definitely in league with the hardware vendors - even more so than Microsoft. Every time a new 'killer' game comes out people have to upgrade their video card / more RAM / Faster CPU and so on to be able to run it. With a console the games last the life of the machine without having to upgrade, so an X-Box game will play on all X-Boxes from the first to the last, for example.

Agreed the consoles change once every 4 or 5 years, but after a few months the prices come down to £200, which is cheaper than the price of a new CPU or Video card for a PC. Oh - and a PC is a business machine which just so happens to play games. A console is a machine designed specifically *only* to play games.

[Scuby]

Originally Posted by Bantam

All that comes as standard out of the box with an Apple Mac. Yup - buy a £300 Mac Mini and you get all the above.

Errrr... that would be £300, plus monitor, plus keyboard, plus mouse, ......

David

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by Scuby

Errrr... that would be £300, plus monitor, plus keyboard, plus mouse, ......

David

It's being sold to those people who probably have the above, but their PC is old and knackered.

Either that or you pay £30 for the keyboard and Mouse and plug the thing into the DVI port on your Plasma TV if you're that way inclined. Or buy a FP monitor from Tesco for £100 so total cost £430.

[Mr T.]

Reports of Vista virus rebutted



Vista should be available next year

Microsoft has hit back at reports of the first virus for its new version of Windows, dubbed Vista.

Last week an Austrian programmer published examples of malicious code that exploits a Microsoft command shell technology currently under development.

But the software giant has said the technology targeted will not be part of the next version of Windows.

"These reports pose no risk for Microsoft customers," said the firm's Stephen Toulouse in a blog posting.

Vista, previously codenamed Longhorn, is due for release towards the end of 2006, half a decade after Windows XP.

No threat

The malicious code affects a Microsoft command shell technology called MSH.

The viruses do not attempt to exploit a software vulnerability and do not encompass a new method of attack


Stephen Toulouse, Microsoft

This could replace the simple command shell used in Windows. A command shell lets users enter text-based commands, as in the predecessor to Windows, DOS.

The emergence of the proof-of-concept viruses prompted reports of the first viruses for Vista, as MSH was expected to be part of the new operating system.

But Microsoft has sought to squash talk of Vista viruses. In a posting on the company's security blog, Stephen Toulouse said the MSH technology would not be included in the final version of Vista.

Instead he said that MSH was still being tested and could be included in future versions of Windows developed in three to five years' time.

"The viruses do not attempt to exploit a software vulnerability and do not encompass a new method of attack," said the Microsoft security programme manager.

Mr Toulouse also denied that MSH was being pulled from Windows Vista due to the virus reports.

"One had nothing to do with the other," he said.

Microsoft's flagship Windows software already runs on about 90% of personal computers worldwide.

The firm has promised that security will be an integral part of Vista.