Windows 7's Media Hype Having the Opposite Effect As Vista's 864
Death Metal Maniac tips an Ars Technica piece suggesting that the media's coverage of Vista's flaws portrayed the operating system as worse than it was, and, if early reports on Windows 7 are any indication, positive hype will create the opposite reaction this time around. Quoting: "... the problem is exaggeration; ... bloggers and journalists alike use their personal experiences to prove their point in their writing. The blame doesn't solely lie with us, as Vista was by no means perfect, but we did manage to amplify the problems beyond reason. And if the beta is anything to go by, Windows 7 is going to fly. This is, by far, the best beta operating system the software giant has ever released. The media has locked on to this, and is using exaggeration already, before Windows 7 is even ready for prime time." Apparently a decent beta can succeed where $300 million and Jerry Seinfeld failed.
Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
but we did manage to amplify the problems beyond reason.
No you didn't. And yes, I've had to use Vista.
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
At least Microsoft's marketing department is doing its job right this time.
Tell me why I MUST have Windows 7 (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows zealots will have to try very hard to convince me that I need Windows 7. As it stands now, I will not touch it even with a 10 foot pole. Windows XP works and works quite well for me. I plan to ditch it for KDE 4.2 when it comes out though.
TFA is totally wrong about why Vista failed (Score:5, Insightful)
IT people killed Vista, and I see no reason why they will be any happier with Win7. I have talked to dozens of industry people, from the guys who network mom & pop shops to guys who run databases for Fortune 100 companies, and NONE of them wanted anything to do with Vista. Their complaints were that it was entirely too dependent on internet connectivity, it was totaly different and therefore a major hassle to integrate with their existing network infrastructure and to maintain at the user level, and could not be locked down in a corporate environment properly. Win7 is a finger in the eye to these people -- it doesn't even have Classic mode any more. I've only spoken to a couple of them since Win7 was introduced but they aren't impressed.
And it is a truism from the days of Dos 2.0 that people do prefer to use at home what they use at work. When the tech friends they depend on to fix what they can't insist they run XP, they will insist on XP. Office and Word became popular not because they're all that good but because people brought them home and became comfortable with them there.
This has all come down to a giant Mexican standoff between Microsoft, which wants to determine how your computer looks and acts, and corporate IT types who want to determine those things. (As for you determining those things, that ship has sailed; the end of Classic mode tells that tale.) The IT guyes will not give up their control. Microsoft has obviously dug in their heels. It is not clear to me how this will end, but from what I have seen it will not end with widespread Win7 on the corporate desktop.
I get your point, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
What alternative is there? You can't stay on XP forever - eventually support will go away, patches will stop, fire and blood will rain from the skies, etc. Eventually, IT will have to move to a new OS, and the odds are that OS will be Win 7 or whatever chunk of crap MS is peddling that year. It's still more compelling for business users than any alternative.
You could move to the Mac, but then you need all new software and you need to completely retrain your staff. Same thing for Linux. So you can move to Win 7 - where you can at least expect some of your software to continue working. Developers can keep cranking out crap in VisualStudio (which is a shitty fucking IDE, whatever it's cadre of loyal adherents say about it), executives can continue using Outlook and schedule meetings with each other, your shitty ActiveX control laden intranet will work without changes (MS is never, ever, ever, gonna give that shit up if they can help it).
It's revolutionary for windows (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I'm so sick of this... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you create an operating system and purposely make it to annoy the users, what do you think you'll get?
Assuming you're talking about UAC, then you'll get a more secure and only slightly more annoying operating system. That was actually one of the things I liked about Vista, though it could have been implemented better. What killed it for me is how bloated and sluggish it is.
The thing about UAC is that it doesn't make it more secure if all you have to do is press allow, users will just click allow each time because it requires no effort
poor reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a dumb argument. I still slice bread with knife, a technology which has been around for thousands of years - I could move to spiffy new computer controlled laser system, but why? It's expensive, both to acquire and replace, it's more work to service, and it doesn't get me much.
So what if the technology is old? Why is the new technology any better? What is the new technology that Win7 introduces that makes it so much better than XP? You don't mention it in your post.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I would phase that slightly different.
The bar has been lowered.
Vista was compared to XP, which thanks to its long long long lifetime has become a standard, fairly polished, with known and mostly manageable security issues.
Vista comes along, does things different, breaks a lot, and is considered shitty.
Then Win7 is released, and it is now being compared to it's direct parent, Vista. Not XP. So MS only has to put a product in the market that appears better than Vista (reviewers won't complain too hard about drivers and other compatibility I suppose, it's beta after all), not better than the old and trusted XP.
That said I doubt Win7 will work on netbooks, so I won't be surprised that XP will be with us for a long long time to come.
yes, but (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't address all the other stuff - software that you can still reuse, stuff with an upgrade path to new version. It's still far cheaper to move to a newer windows than a completely different OS for most businesses.
Believe me, I'd love to see MS lose it's market position, but it's probably not gonna happen because people refuse to move to Win7.
Re:TFA is totally wrong about why Vista failed (Score:2, Insightful)
IT will lose because it's the Boss who will want Vista/Win7 and make it so, regardless of its (lack of) technical merit.
Personally I miss Windows NT/2000 where I didn't have to screw around with the activation shit. I hate dealing with that crap. As a developer I change my hardware all the time and continuously have to waste time on licensing issues for software that I own.
Windows 7: Lowered Expectations Edition (Score:2, Insightful)
After the shit sandwich that was Windows Vista anything can look like a winner. Microsoft could have repackaged Windows 2000 and the technobloggers would have gone nuts how stable and clean it was.
I have friends who will run out of breath arguing how Vista is perfect and has gotten a bad rap due to vast Apple/Media conspiracy to spread rumors and undermine the OS. It's nearly impossible to convince them otherwise. Every objection is met by sarcastic remarks like "LOL MIKKKRO$OFT AM I RITE?!" and the like. You're either an Apple kool-aid drinker or a Linux zealot if you don't submit to Microsoft's talking points on how amazing their latest Windows is.
Soon after Windows 7 Betas appeared and couple of high-status media degenerates started hyperventilating about how perfect the OS was, every Vista evangelist suddenly came out and openly distanced themselves from Vista.
I can bet you lots of money that all these Windows 7 superfans will turn on it as soon as Microsoft pre-announces Windows 8.
Re:poor reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
or to translate, "Waaahh. I don't know the specifics, and if I did, nobody would care anyway because they're linux meanies and have cooties, and they suck and my dad can beat up theirs. Waaaahhh!"
So basically you're a low-level Windows admin with not that much understanding of technology and a chip on your shoulder? Cause that's what you sound like.
Why Not as Fast as XP? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Is it as quick as running XP? Well, no, but don't forget that XP is a seven-year-old operating system that required a Pentium II at release.
You see I don't get this comment. Since the operating system 7 years ago had to run on much slower hardware, well, don't expect that now?
WHY F***G NOT! What on earth does an operating system have to do so that it sucks up ever bit of my quad core machine?
Here is the irony. Superfetch... Superfetch makes my programs faster to load and run. Well, are they counting the time that superfetch takes away while I work?
Oh yes, I remember, it runs in the background. Yes, that's right background if you count not moving your mouse or keyboard. BUT you see I write trading systems, and have traders, and they actually don't move their mouse or keyboard. Guess what thinks, it is ok to startup run, and cycle through a terrabyte of data? Yes anything that should run in the background!
I would actually like a faster operating system! I have a hate list of Vista, and not a single thing has changed in Windows 7! Windows 7 is literally putting lipstick on a pig!
Re:Still no sudo (Score:1, Insightful)
whats with the fanboi encroachment ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
The IT guys will not give up their control (Score:2, Insightful)
they are being paid to make sure that the it infrastructure that their company works on works AS the company wants it, and in the fashion company wants it.
not microsoft.
no company can accept an outside company dictating it, networking and security procedures within their own network. its actually unbelievable that we're even discussing this.
Why Vista Really Failed (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason Vista really failed is the same people who are hyping up 7, the media.
Vista changed the way drivers needed to be written for security reasons, and because hardware vendors suck at writing drivers for whatever they make, there were all sorts of problems with hardware compatibility, ESPECIALLY with older hardware. Add to that UI changes ranging from minor to extensive in both Vista and Office 07, overzealous UAC, and a million other little things (on top of the million other little things that didn't make it into vista (i thought it was funny that theirs actually a wikipedia page for "Features removed from Windows Vista")), and obviously, almost no ones first impressions were good. Tech writers ravaged it, the mainstream media picked up on their stories and killed most of the little momentum Vista had by simply parroting the tech writers.
However, since then drivers have gotten good, service pack 1 has come out, and Vista has matured. You'd have a hard time finding a second impression review of the OS that did nothing but bash the OS like the first impression ones did. In fact, lots of reviews coming out now are actually praising Vista for becoming better than its predecessor (granted only with modern day hardware).
Windows 7 is Windows Vista++. A refined UI, refined UAC, drivers are mature now, performance is approximately as good or better than vista (which is as good or better than XP on the right hardware), IE8 is shaping up to be an improvement, and the whole package seems to just work better. Most of the tech writers have already been won over by Vista, windows 7 appears to be better than that (and its just a beta!), so obviously they write favorable reviews. The mainstream media is picking up on their stories and hyping up the slowly growing mass of momentum Windows 7 has by simply parroting the tech writers.
TL;DR: vista was killed by bad first impressions that the mass media ran with. windows 7 will succeed because of good first impressions that the mass media is running with.
Re:Not a Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lets be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
well put.
If microsoft wanted a real killer OS, they would release XP SE or something with updated drivers and fixes.
The only downside to running XP at this point is drivers are slowly becoming more difficult to get a hold of.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue?
First, stop making the product so absurdly exploitable. In no way should it be possible to contract malware from simply visiting a website, or leaving a network cable plugged in.
Second, make it obvious what you're doing, but not actually intrusive. It should not be possible to download and execute a program without realizing what you're doing. For an example of how to do this wrong, see VBA -- I should not be able to contract malware from a fucking office document. Nor should I have to memorize a list of dangerous file extensions. Compare with Linux -- until you chmod +x, or unpack the archive, it's not dangerous.
Third, provide known-good channels for obtaining new software. See: Linux package managers and repositories. Tie it in to Microsoft Update. Make it possible for third parties to run their own repositories. No need to host everything yourself, but it should at least be possible to periodically fetch, from a trusted source, a list of updated packages and signatures.
And finally, educate your users. The only computer which is secure from a user's own idiocy is one which doesn't let the user do anything worth protecting. Not limited to Windows, either, though it would help if the OS encouraged more secure, rather than less secure, modes of operation.
But until you've done the other steps, no amount of education will solve the problem. As long as the standard Windows method of installing software is some random EXE downloaded off a website, with at most an unverifiable signature claiming it's from that website, it requires too much effort.
Re:poor reasoning (Score:1, Insightful)
Breadknives have NOT existed for thousands of years. You seem to be confusing the modern breadknife (a light, strong, sawtoothed instrument made specifically for cutting a certain relatively modern material, from certain relatively modern kinds of steel) with relatively blunt, heavy, non-serrated non-steel general utility blade.
Technology moves on, even for the humble knife. That applies much more, to highly complex, modern, young technologies like operating systems.
Re:Why Not as Fast as XP? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>Is it as quick as running XP? Well, no, but don't forget that XP is a seven-year-old operating system that required a Pentium II at release.
>You see I don't get this comment. Since the operating system 7 years ago had to run on much slower hardware, well, don't expect that now?
>WHY F***G NOT! What on earth does an operating system have to do so that it sucks up ever bit of my quad core machine?
Hear Hear.
Yeah, early computing tech was slow, but at least the programmers were on average more careful with resource use.
Today's increase in tech level has allowed people to make bloated stuff where the bloat isn't really necessary. There are improvements in general, but so much of it is just stupid waste.
I shouldn't _need_ 42 bazillion megs of RAM for my computer to work properly
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
In a day and age where an email borne trojan, locked away in a password protected zip file, purporting to be an urgent fix for your computer can get a not insubstantial install base shows that your points 1 - 3 would be nothing more than short term fixes, if that.
Re:poor reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
from what I've read (and I do read from places other than Slashdot), that Windows 7 stops allowing *some* applications to be written entirely like shit.
Unlikely. There is no operating system, or framework, or magic sauce which will prevent an application from being written like shit [thedailywtf.com].
It is, however, possible for a language or a framework to encourage applications to be written like shit -- IMO, PHP does this. Are you suggesting that XP does as well?
the ones that *require admin rights* and other things won't function well. They are breaking compatibility for those poorly coded apps.
In other words, they're doing exactly what they did in Vista. Which, while a welcome change, the way they enforced it was moronic and irritating -- the app still ultimately requires admin rights, but now I have to click "Yes, I want to give it admin rights" five, ten, sometimes fifteen times.
Other things like Direct X, memory management, caching... I guess those are plusses too.
Gee, I didn't know XP didn't have DirectX, or caching! Oh wait...
On the enterprise end there are *lots* of enhancements and benefits, but since this is Slashdot,
Since this is Slashdot, it would help if you cited even a single enhancement or benefit that isn't already in XP.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
And pray-tell, what real benefits are those?
Badly composited windows that take way too many resources?
Removal of receiving and sending faxes from the home (crippled user) version?
Non-accelerated sound system?
DRM system built in on the audio and video subsystems?
Ram gobbler (2GB.. not enough)?
10GB install with no real apps (where did the space go)? yay solitaire.
1: opinion, I quite like the windows layout in Vista. Vista uses lots of resources as a whole, it's not down to the windows. Don't want your GPU being used for Aero? Disable it.
2: Are you serious? How many home users ever send a fax at all, let alone through their PC? I've not seen a PC built in the last 5+ years that had a fax modem.
3: That is one of the best features of Vista. Bad sound drivers were one of the main causes of blue screens in XP. Putting a software layer between the drivers and hardware prevents a lot of problems because manufacturers simply couldn't be trusted. I suppose the per application volume control and other benefits the Vista sound system brings are awful too?
4: I wish people would stop parroting this stupid point. The DRM Vista enables you to play things you otherwise couldn't play. You strip out the DRM and there's no difference except you can't play certain media types. Don't like DRM, don't buy protected media!
5: unused RAM is wasted RAM. So long as it frees up the RAM when a high priority application needs it, using spare RAM for caching can have huge benefits. Don't trot out the power usage argument. The difference in power between half full ram and full ram is miniscule
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I get your point, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
What alternative is there?
Linux. OS X. ReactOS and FreeDOS, if it comes to it.
You can't stay on XP forever - eventually support will go away, patches will stop, fire and blood will rain from the skies...
So you put it in a virtual machine. If you can't lock it down from inside the OS, lock it down from outside the OS.
You could move to the Mac, but then you need all new software and you need to completely retrain your staff. Same thing for Linux.
With Win7 or Vista, you've got to completely retrain your staff on the OS, anyway. With Office 2k7, you probably have to retrain them on applications, too.
So you take the legacy apps you care about, and you run them in Wine and/or Crossover. Maybe you even donate/pay your Windows 7 licenses to the Wine/Codeweavers people (respectively) to get them to support the apps you need.
your shitty ActiveX control laden intranet will work without changes (MS is never, ever, ever, gonna give that shit up if they can help it).
Let's take this as an example. Let's assume I take a copy of XP, with IE and everything (probably IE7) ready to go, and never, ever patch it again.
So I put it in a virtual machine. I take a snapshot of the VM state. I configure it to only have network connectivity via a tun device, which I then firewall such that it can only connect to the other tun device I'm using for the VPN. I configure the VPN server to only allow connections to itself, not between peers, and I lock it down, hard. I set up the ActiveX server there.
I configure each firewall to only allow connections from the VM, to the ActiveX server, on only the ports it needs.
It is now physically impossible for anyone to get at the XP virtual machine unless they crack the host first. Even if something somehow does happen -- maybe some instability, maybe the user makes a mistake -- it's pretty much one button away from a known-good snapshot. And no matter how much work that was to set up, it's pretty much zero maintenance -- that snapshot will be good forever, or until the shitty ActiveX control has to change.
And when the shitty ActiveX control changes, hopefully they'll think twice about relying on a proprietary technology from an unreliable (and untrustworthy) vendor.
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pressing 3 + 2 * 2 = in windows calculator.
Standard: 10 (as a handheld calculator would produces, as it calculates 3 + 2 when you press *)
Scientific: 7 (as the scientific calculator on my desk produces)
What's the problem?
It's not about hype, it's about value (Score:3, Insightful)
Blog hype or lack of it may change the impression of the product, or maybe MSFT finally has brought out the product Vista should have been, but the real question is does it provide value for the money it costs?
Microsoft's strategy of keeping itself inserted in the market by pressuring OEM's isn't going to last. There are already cracks in that wall. Netbooks almost got away from them, still could unless Windows 7 flies on low end hardware and doesn't add $100 to the cost. Maybe a lower cost version for low end hardware
Any way you slice it MS is in a bind. Sure they'll keep muscling the market via OEM's and leveraging school and government officials, the dead weight of legions of MCSE's and .NET developers, people invested in Microsoft, many in positions to influence decision makers. There's a lot of institutional inertia there. But if they field a crippled version for lower cost netbooks, Linux will eat their lunch on features. If they charge full price that will essentially double the cost of low end hardware. In addition, hardware OEM's want to sell more powerful and more expensive new desktops. But the market for high end hardware is not growing that fast. There's gaming, video, CAD and a few other specialized areas where you need beefy horsepower. The average productivity workstation doesn't need dual cores. For a majority of home users being able to see pictures of their kids, dash off a quick letter once in a while and check email is all they need to do and they don't need a $300 OS or high end hardware to do that. I just don't see a bright future for Redmond in this.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF has that got to do with Linux ? How did this malicious pdf get on "all your sites" in the first place ? How did the javascript get onto your sites ?
It sounds more like your pc was infected anyway. Especially as the only remedial action you mention taking is to get rid of Acrobat.
Re:Why Vista Really Failed (Score:3, Insightful)
The real reason Vista really failed is the same people who are hyping up 7, the media.
Completely wrong. There are two reasons why Vista failed. The first is that it's a crap product. The media duly took their ad money and their Ferrari laptops and reported their unbiased finding that it was the coolest thing since sliced bread. They squandered their credibility because far and away most people who tried it hated it.
The second reason why Vista failed was us. We tried it. We put it through its paces. We compared it side-by-side with XP. We tried to prepare it for deployment to our myriad customers with their critical applications and legacy hardware, and found that it would not serve. Then we signed on to slashdot and cnet and ZDnet and every other news forum with comments and every time they posted yet another rave review we got up in the comments and told the truth. Never before have I seen such dissonance between news reportage of technology and the public comments available. We told our friends, our family. When we got a call on Saturday from Cousin Joe halfway across the country asking "XP or Vista for my new PC" we told him "Not Vista. If you can't get XP, get a mac." The consensus opinion became so strong that non-technical family members who had never tried it were warning me off of the thing.
That's why Vista failed. Will 7? I don't know. I've got it running and it doesn't seem bad yet. Windows explorer is a little crashy, but it's a beta. I haven't tried most of the critical apps that have to run before I'd recommend it, but the base system does not seem to have the dog-slow performance that Vista did. We'll see.
Re:Why Not as Fast as XP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 is literally putting lipstick on a pig!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain how acrobat had write permission to the operating system files.
----
This "No viruses for linux/bsd/osx because they are not popular" is simply microsoft propaganda.
If the 90/10 market share is true, then those systems should have 10% of the virus market by that logic.
Since so many web servers out there are linux, it stands to reason that virus writers would be more motivated to attack linux, owning a much more strategic point in the web than some end user's windows PC.
Google is a massively parallel network built on linux. You're claiming no virus writers would be interested in owning the google cloud?
Enough with the illogical propaganda.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what the hell are they doing with all that space? Freshly-installed Vista eats more space than Ubuntu with every app I might conceivably want to ever use installed, even with Vista's disk-swap turned off!
Re:You're out of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you actually tasted commercially packaged, pre-sliced bread? It is terrible. Go to a good baker, now, and get a fresh whole loaf. No, don't go to the supermarket, a real baker! If you're fast, it might still be nice, warm, and crispy.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think virus writers are attempting to break into the Linux cloud?
What Linux cloud?! I don't think you understand what cloud is supposed to mean (which is not much, really: it is mostly marketing-speak...)
I *have* given you an example of a Linux server getting exploited and owned, but I guess you chose to ignore that.
You have given an example of a PHP app which got owned, which is a complete different thing.
If you had set up an ssh server in that box configured so that it accepts root logins with an empty password, then you would have got hacked in about 3 minutes. But, again, this would have absolutely nothing to Linux's exploitability....
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, glad to see that stuff like UI layout is being modded up. It only is a matter of personal taste but whatever. I personally hate the Office Ribbon, but haven't had to use Office 2007 much so I can't be sure if its bad or not. I have used Vista and played with Windows 7 and I personally like the new UI for Windows Explorer. I think its oodles better than the flat gray color used in Windows XP, 2000, and 95/98.
But who cares about the way the UI looks. That's really a minor thing compared to the issues that were amplified. The first poster here gets modded +5 Insightful for saying "Ars Technia is Wrong" without providing any evidence of the fact.
I'm sorry dude, but you are wrong. What was wrong with Vista? Well there were some hardware incompatibility issues that were resolved within the first four months, and for the most part that was strictly NVIDIA [arstechnica.com], who behaved like a child and got a few other vendors to tell MS "NO! We're NOT going to correct our drivers for the changes you made!" Granted, it was bullshit that MS made those kinds of changes that late in development, but really all they did was boost Intel and ATI sales slightly since OEMs needed "Vista Capable" hardware to go with the new OS they had to use.
Which brings us to the biggest issues with Vista: the hardware requirements. Oh no, it requires a whole 2G of RAM to XP's 1G. Given the price of RAM, this is REALLY a non-issue for people who build their own systems. All it did was irritate OEMs, and you just know it was a marketing guy at MS not one of the engineers who told the OEMs to use the 512 and it'll all be fine. I'll let the class action lawsuit [arstechnica.com] settle that dispute. It was a non issue for myself and the people I know that built a Vista system were gamers, and for the most part the benchmarks for games while using Vista Ultimate x64 and XP SP2 were the pretty much the same [tomshardware.com].
The software incompatibilities were only to be expected. For the most part Vista's built in backwards compatibility modes work awesome and now that people have been needing to develop on 64 bit OS its a non issue. From the start this was a given for an architecture change and personally I don't count it against Vista since it was going to happen eventually anyways, but I'll count it against it anyways since everyone else seems to too.
The only other major issue I can think of was the file transfer times. [vistaheads.com] Before SP1, I personally never noticed this issue. Not sure what I was doing different, other than most people seemed to be referencing Windows Server 2003 so these people were using Vista most likely around the office rather than at home. Given how many people that rag on Vista that aren't network admins and mention the transfer times I'm sort of interested to know if it was THAT widespread for home users but couldn't find any quick references. Either way, once SP1 came out I stopped hearing of this issue. Given its MS it was pretty obvious the OS would be flakey until the first SP. I'm not sure why people freaked out over this when XP had a few more issues along similar lines but whatever.
So mod on you MS bashers! I just love how a supposedly intelligent site like Slashdot has this rabid fanaticism about OS choices. The flaming of Apple's OS and the various Linux distros (not to mention the BSD based ones) never ceases to amaze. I guess humans just need something to cling to. With apologies to Terry Pratchett: "Give them a slogan and a uniform, and their hearts and minds will follow."
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Servers on any OS are harder to attack, because most viruses (in fact, all viruses, if you go by the strict definition of a computer virus, as opposed to a worm) require human interaction at some point to aid them. As servers tend to run unattended most of the time, the attacker has to resort to fully automated methods to exploit the system (i.e. security holes).
With desktop, all that's really needed is tricking the user into opening an infected file one way or another. On a system with properly configured security (i.e. user is not root - such as any Linux, or Windows starting with Vista), you also need to trick the user to click the confirmation prompt to access files. It is fairly obvious that both Linux and Vista/Win7 have equivalent security measures to prevent this scenario (which are sadly still not enough to overcome the human stupidity). However, 90% of all desktops are still Windows, which is why it makes more sense to attack it. Well, and also because Linux users today tend to be more tech savvy and will actually wonder why their email client asks them to elevate - but that's another story, and is not something that can be fixed by technical measured today.
So, the argument is valid, and abundance of Linux servers does not enter into the equation. All that matters is the desktop.
Re:Why Not as Fast as XP? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even with Vista, we assume that most users will have a modern PC with at least 1GB of RAM, and that will only go up over the next few years. Why should Microsoft waste their resources for the benefit of a handful of people with older hardware?
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me, an exploit in PHP shouldn't count as an exploit in Linux. First because php is completely cross-platform, second because only fools believe php is secure, and third because if your install was setup correctly, the webserver's user-account would have no write permission to code.
Let me repeat that last. When your webserver goes to hand out index.php, if it sees "rw-" for permissions, any exploit is YOUR FAULT.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't even know the two modes worked differently until now. In my eyes the problems are:
Both are pretty major issues for such a simple app, IMO.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you have ssh with a simple password? Or did you use ftp over an wireless connection?
You mention php, is it possible that YOU did something stupid?
I doubt you'd admit any possibility that you left a gaping hole. But since you claim you have no idea how it happened, maybe you shouldn't use it as a case against Linux. Mainly because, as you can see, it can be turned into a case against you as well.
Re:Why Not as Fast as XP? (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole attitude of "it shouldn't need to be any faster" just flies in the face of logic, I'm sorry. By that theory, we should all still be running 8086 machines, and Windows, Linux, et al would be fine on them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending software bloat; if I had my way, everything would be coded in ASM, and Vista probably would be able to run perfectly well on a 386.
People are expecting more from their computers than they used to. Users like pretty things like transparency, 3D window flipping, and a fully buffered desktop. They like automatic spellchecking. They like being able to play media files at the press of a button. They like being always contactable via IM or whatever.
These things require memory and processing cycles.
You couldn't do all of those things on the P133 I had ten years ago, but you can on modern hardware.
It's time to let go and get over it. Hardware moves on, and software develops to meet it. If you think you can create something as good as Windows 7 (with all the features) that runs well on the afore-mentioned Pentium 133, then go right ahead.
(You or I may not think much of some or all of the above, but normal, non-unixy, non-geeky people do)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
That said I doubt Win7 will work on netbooks, so I won't be surprised that XP will be with us for a long long time to come.
Heh. It actually boots faster than XP on my EeePC 1000HD (900MHz Celeron, 1GB RAM). It's also a touch more responsive overall. If it didn't have the interesting habit of crashing randomly, I'd replace XP with it right now. But it's a beta, what do you expect?
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
My Linux server was exploited, I'm not quite sure how (nor did the server management guys).
If you're not quite sure how it was exploited, how do you know Linux itself was at fault?
Overwriting a few PHP files could have easily been done through a security hole in the PHP app itself.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
You're guessing ? So your inexperienced musings count as fact do they ? "Linux is the bad because I am so used to windows that I blame everything on the OS." If you are sharing a server, it is highly probably that you are sharing an ip address. Bad guy pings the ip address for certain php files, and if they are found, automated injection takes place. No "hacking" required. Read up on php, particularly safe_mode and register_globals. Do you allow comments on your blog ? Does each site on this server come with pre-installed blogging software ?
Because the "whole system" wasn't "infected". Several text files contained malicious javascript. Unless you actively run those commands nothing happens. Contrast that to windows getting infected, when everything windows touches gets affected. In your case it was just php code not system binaries. That's the whole point - Linux does not allow php to affect system files. Linux does not allow the user to affect system files. You can't run a web app as root, unless you go way out of your way to set it up like that. And that is most unlikely in your case.
Re:And again. (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the reason for Windows' success, then how do you explain the fact that so many of the biggest Windows users (i.e. major companies) explicitly go out of their way to prevent that kind of behaviour? Most places these days have a horribly bureaucratic process required to get access to the most trivial of utilities. Many companies even use programs designed to sniff out unauthorised software, to ensure that nothing they don't know about ever gets run on their computers.
And of course it's worth noting that since Vista, Microsoft have been doing everything they can to move towards the Linux/Unix style, where even home users need to use an administrator password to install software. So apparently even Microsoft disagrees with you about what makes Windows successful...
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:4, Insightful)
I still can't get over how they want me to pay for less. They seemed to have spent an exorbitant amount of time working on the gloss and glitter of the OS, but seemed to strip features that I liked out of the OS altogether. I love the ability to turn quicklaunch bars into menus. It made transitions from Gnome to Windows (and back) easier. (Maybe this was their point in removing them?) I also dislike that the classic start menu is gone. I understand people didn't like that depth of menus (which is what I actually liked, being able to customize the layout) but to remove the feature altogether seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Also, I read about someone disliking the new treeview and I have to agree. I want lines and I don't want my icons disappearing if the view loses focus.
I also dislike the addition of more toolbars that cannot be removed. This seems to enforce the idea that the OS has to be a greater part of your computer usage when, in fact, I want it to get out of my way more.
Why are you so sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm quite certain that if I tried to run Ubuntu 8.10 or whatever the newest release of it is (I've been out of the loop for a bit) on the same machine that I was running Red Hat 5.1 on ten years ago, it would choke.
I'm not. There are not really any more background processes. Code efficiency has improved... the only thing that probably would be slower is the GUI, but that's only the window manager and can be changed out easily or scaled back with settings changes.
Fundamentally Windows gets slower because the core system gets slower in the background, meaning the system as a whole needs more CPU just to stay in place. This contrasts with both Mac and Linux systems where new releases generally do not cause overall system slowdowns, even though they may add some components that are more CPU intensive.
Re:poor reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
I simply tell people if it doesn't run as a limited user it isn't Fully XP/Vista compatible.
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, I don't know what you've done to your Vista but somehow or other you've monged it thouroughly.
1. Mine actually does this. In fact, the behaviour you suggest for default is...erm...the OS default. It's only if you click the "remember this choice" button that it changes.
2. They are slow, though that did improve witht he service pack.
3. I've shared arbitrary folders as writeable. I use it to mount my entire C drive from my Mac.
4. Or you could right-click->Properties->Sharing. Your call. You can't take the long way round and then blame MS for it.
5. I've never done this, so no comment.
6. This is the most annoying thing. Seems like every time you boot the computer you have to reboot it! But this is a flaw with Windows vs. Linux etc, not with Vista in specific.
7. Again, this is not something I've had a problem with (as in, my behaviour has never been restricted by it) but it may be true.
8. A lot of this was driven by the device manufacturers. See the Creative vs. Daniel_K fiasco, discussed here a while ago.
9. Most times I boot the PC I don't run into UAC. It does trigger too often (e.g. when changing user settings) but it doesn't really bug me much more than a privileges elevation in Linux.
10. I actually like the Network and Sharing center. It's a central interface for networking activities. I wish Ubuntu had one by default.
11&12. Yeah, but again, these are criticisms of Windows vs. *nix and the average consumer doesn't seem to care.
I've had no problems with Vista, or at least none that weren't caused by Creative.
Re:Why are you so sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
My Red Hat 5.1 (5.2 actually) machine was a Pentium 75 box with 16MB of memory. And, yeah, you could run X on it.
Do you really want to run GNOME or KDE on that?
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:poor reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
if I can utilize a new tool to get my job done more effectively and easily, I can't see a reason not to use it.
True, but RealityMaster's point is that he doesn't see any improvements for him, and HerculesMO wasn't offering any examples. You did so by mentioning the universal imaging.
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another reason why Linux has a 0.86% desktop market share... and dropping.
Re:poor reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, they're doing exactly what they did in Vista. Which, while a welcome change, the way they enforced it was moronic and irritating -- the app still ultimately requires admin rights, but now I have to click "Yes, I want to give it admin rights" five, ten, sometimes fifteen times.
In other words if the application developer does their job you'll receive at most ONE, and often times NONE of the prompts because they'll take the proper path and ask for minimal rights instead of being lazy and asking for admin priv's.
Don't blame MS for your application dev's failure. ESPECIALLY when you sound like one of the zealots bitching about their security track record.
Gee, I didn't know XP didn't have DirectX, or caching! Oh wait...
It has directX 11? Care to link to it, or are you just being an asshat?
Since this is Slashdot, it would help if you cited even a single enhancement or benefit that isn't already in XP.
Since this is slashdot he assumed the readers were informed on technology. Or at the very least, knew how to use google.
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows 7 will be still the bloated pig of an OS that Vista was (and is), but hardware and time has caught up so that now, it runs at a reasonable clip on the latest hardware.
To put this in perspective: I just installed Debian (latest) on a 2 GHz Celeron with 256 Mb RAM and 80G harddrive. Runs KDE3 with firef^H^H^H^H^Hiceweasel fine. Now tell me about bloat.
And don't tell me it's too old, the kernel is 10 days old.
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh - so now that we have new and better hardware, we can drown it in slow systems? Just to make sure the old software doesn't run faster on it?
This is an OPERATING SYSTEM, for heavens sake. Am I such an old fart that my view "The OS stays quietly in the background" is a rare one? An OS handles the execution of other software. It's supposed to be hardly noticable. And if you load an OS into your PC, and it eats up so much RAM that ONE GIGABYTE of RAM is not sufficient for anything but the desktop background, don't you think they're overdoing it a little bit?
Yeah, a GB is not much these days. But seen as a data storage device, it's HUGE. No reason for your OS to eat it all up.
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're part of the other 99.14%... good.