http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+secure+IE+for+XP+only/2100-1032_3-5378366.html

Isn't that fancy? The funniest quotes are towards the bottom: Um... what? I remember installing win95 and having to download IE separate when it came out? Yeah right.

I have little doubt that there was profitable reasoning behind this move, and it does make sense; the majority of people using Windows are using XP, while the majority of those who aren't are using operating systems no longer made commercially available by Microsoft.

Why spend money on securing a profitless avenue? Microsoft is out to make money, and when those who find this out have to upgrade to XP (which is a better operating system, hands down), they make more money and don't spend money trying to make older, relatively obselete operating systems. I mean, let's face it: typically, the most expensive step of software development is its maintenance.

I think they are referring to IE as having been part of XP since XP was realeased, which is true

Or people can screw off IE and go with Firefox or Opera...

I just opened a pandora's box didn't I.

If they are talking about XP why don't they say "XP" instead of "windows?"

Microsoft? Evil? That umpossible!

Well, this should provide some fuel for firefox's fire if nothing else.

Except that tons and tons of programs embed the IE rendering inside their app and thus you have to be very careful about which apps you run. And even then, you don't generally know whether they embed IE until it's too late.

First, I'm not sure the majority of windows users are using XP. Second, a company has an obligation to fix things that are costing users and the world billions of dollars because of security issues. Hell, I just saw a news story about an air-traffic control system that crashed because of a flaw in the windows OS. If Ford puts out a car with faulty brakes, guess what? The government forces a recall and they have to get fixed. If a monitor company ships a monitor that is prone to implosion, a recall is issued. But for some reason, with software (even software that runs mission-critical systems), there is no recall.

By your argument, Microsoft isn't really making money from all those that have XP already anyway, only off new ones, so they should basically charge for every single solitary patch, so they can continue to make money. The problem is that they look at software as a revenue farm. I get frustrated because the only time I use windows is for games, and I *still* have to "upgrade" on a regular basis because games are coming out that don't support older OSs (for no good reason I might add).

And while xp may be a superior OS (I'm still not convinced), I refuse to give MS a complete inventory of my hardware and installed software every time I make a change to my system (which is often). I refuse to use product activation, forget that mess.

It says so in the article.



That's a case-by-case basis. In terms of, say, NASA, it's up to both the software developer to test the software and NASA to ensure that the software actually does work. If NASA encounters a problem, it's up to them to report the problem, and then the developer to fix it. Then both re-test it. In cases like the crashing of the air control software, yes, I agree, the fault (at face value) lies with Microsoft.

Quote:

By your argument, Microsoft isn't really making money from all those that have XP already anyway, only off new ones, so they should basically charge for every single solitary patch, so they can continue to make money.

[/quote]

By all means, Microsoft can. But then they'd lose a tremendous amount of their client base. I'm not saying they should, though. I was simply giving the viewpoint of a company whose sole purpose is profit -- profit made through happy customers.[/B][/QUOTE]

What percentage of microsoft customers do you think are "happy" with them? I'd bet a lot are "relatively okay" with the way windows works, but I doubt many are happy customers.

Well when there's one product that a huge majority of the world uses, in this case the Windows OS, of course you're going to hear alot of horror stories as a result.

But how many days, weeks, months go by, do you think, where a company or a user has no major problems with Windows, considering the million of people who use it everyday? All the computer is my house, for instance, have been running XP for over two years and we haven't had a single mishap as a result of the OS.

The problem is, you only ever hear about the problems, and since it's such a popular program, it seems like alot. At least...that's how I see it.

I remember differently.. Question then. What did you use to download IE? IMO, a browser *should* come packaged with an O/S, because the Internet is such an integral part of computing these days. Sure, your ISP can give you a browser to get started, but what if you're moving into an apartment that already has the internet in it through a proxy? If you have an internet connection, you should be able to start browsing the very first time your computer starts up. I'd hate to have to look for my ISP CD everytime I reinstalled.

Probably because the little "heads" at Microsoft like to think that XP is the Epitomy of Windows.

I think it's less to do with whether or not people are happy with windows and more to do with the fact that people are ignorant of alternatives. I told a few people in my office I was installing a linux partition and every single one looked at me blankly. Plus, there are a number of reasons that people are tied to using MS. Eg: gaming, windows only programs, familiarity etc. But at the end of the day, the computer is only as good as the person using it

****** brings up a good point. Modern computing almost requires internet connectivity. In the days of Windows 95 and Windows 98 (to an extent) the internet was just beginning to blossom. A browser wasn't essential. Now, you can't get away from "http://"

Microsoft made an excellent business strategy. They saw that the internet would ripen very quickly and decided to bundle the browser in with the OS. The method of including browser with the OS isn't exactly a good thing. As I am learning in my Operating Systems class, the OS is incredibly complicated esp. the modern ones. Adding internet browsing just only makes it more complicated (thus prone to bugs). IE should have been completely stand alone. But execs got greedy an incorporated it in and in the end its actually causing them grief (whole DoJ bruhaha)

I haven't seen a whole lot of applications that use the IE API. Or if they are used, it's not very important to actual software. The only ones that use the IE API extensively is, of course, Microsoft applications (Office, VS .NET, etc). But, suffice it to say, IE will most likely remain integral to the OS for a while.

Yeah, me and the guys were having a good chuckle about this today at work...

Windows is the best operating system for your typical, run-of-the-mill commercial company; your typical computer user doesn't know diddily squat about computers, and would be lost in the swarm of modules and add-ons required for Linux operating systems.

Myself, I'm quite happy with XP Home. My dad's happy with XP Home on his laptop and two desktops. My mom's happy with XP Home on her desktop. My sister is happy with XP Home on her desktop. My friends here on campus are happy with XP Home.

I'm not saying Linux is a bad operating system; what I'm saying is that for most users, XP is a better operating system, with better support than Linux.

Apparently, the internet is a feature of Windows too.

i once just didn't care about anything MS did. now i'm starting to really dislike them.

Nah, I remember using Netscape Navigator 2 or 3, which my ISP gave me when I signed up for 14.4kbps dial-up. Back like in '97 or something. Win95, the original release, did NOT come with IE. IE3 eventually became popular and became bundled with OSR1 if I remember correctly, OSR2 brought IE4, which was the first that was an "integral" part of the OS.

Someone can correct me about the service releases, but I know I'm right about IE.

Remember, better is not the same as good. There is not killer OS out there that is "very good" for home users.

Of course. I'm not saying XP is the epitomy of operating system perfection -- with a lack of a true DOS operating system and problems with backward compatibility, it's not the greatest at working with Windows 9x software, and you can pretty much forget DOS-based software (i.e. games). But XP is more user-friendly for the person who can't readily diagnose problems with their system and simply wants to be able to dial a number and get a representative of the company that manufactures it.

Linux is better for the more computer-savvy person who doesn't mind having to find out how to properly emulate an environment to suit the needs of Windows-based software. I consider one of those people to be myself, but I just find it easier, in the end, to use XP, due to its broader support of software, its broader tech support base, and the fact that whatever holes in its security are easily patched by Microsoft or covered by my Norton firewall and AV software.

I'd go mac if it weren't for a lack of mac games. Macs are overall more fun to use, and tend to just FEEL better. As well, trouble-shooting a mac is simple, and pretty painless. A very solid platform and system makes for a great tool. I plan on purchasing a mac notebook just because word processing and basic internet surfing (The things I'd do on a notebook) are far more easier and comfortable on the mac.

JediKirby

*cough*

That should take you directly to a listing of most of the games available for OS X. Hit me up on MSN/IRC if the link doesn't work. It all depends upon what you're interested in. The selection isn't as big, granted, but there are still some damned good titles in there.

I'm not saying linux is better. I'm saying that even if you don't consider linux, people aren't "happy" with windows. It seems to work most of the time, it crashes a lot, gets a lot of virii, and people still routinely reinstall every 6 months or a year. So they're not HAPPY with it, they're just used to it -- it's become normal to expect bogus crap like product activation, crashing, etc.

That list is still missing a gigantic portion of the games available for the PC. Including freeware/fairly old games, and the newest of the new.

That's something that always gets me. I've never had to re-install Windows.

Never. I've never had an infection that my AV software didn't catch. XP has yet to crash on me.

I'm not putting any more demands on my system than other people, yet I've yet to encounter a minute percentage of problems other people experience.

Thanks for reading the whole post.

Try again.

I expanded on your comment, smarty.

Eh...I think you're stretching there. Windows ME, oh yeah...windows 98...yeah. But XP/2K are actually pretty solid with the DLL redirection at install. I seriously can probably count the number of times my computer at home has hardlocked, needed to be reset on one hand. And most of those times I was doing something that it didn't surprise me when it did. And its current install has been up for at least a year now.

No, microsoft isn't great...and their business strategies are evil in their effectiveness...but they have made some great strides in the reliability sector

Who needs IE when you have firefox?

You expanded and restated something I already had.

As for freeware, there's LOADS of it out there. What you see on that list is only the major games.

Come to Mac......use safari.......lol.

I read an article that within 20 minutes of connecting an XP pc to the internet (new install from the CD), you will already have virii that prevent you from using windows update or virus scanners. Of course this doesn't happen ifyou're behind a firewall or broadband router with an installed firewall, but seriously, this is a big issue that's happening to a lot of people. We see threads about it on here often enough.

I read that report too. In fact, I think I have it printed out somewhere. It was the worst for Dial-Up users because of the time required to actually GET an update.

That right there, is one of the things that is seriously keeping me from using XP. Even with all of the Updates that I have laying around on CDs, I still don't feel safe on an OS that will catch something THAT fast. Granted, the other flavors of Windows have their share of viruses as well, but the mass target is towards XP. I don't like the thought of using an OS where I'm in the direct line of fire and standing right under shells each time I log online.

Almost all viruses for Windows are interchangeable. Especially so between 2k and XP

If as many people were working on Linux viruses as there were working on Windows, people would be complaining about Linux...

I personally love XP. I've never had a single problem with it, only a few minor complaints. If you know what you need to do (WinUpdate, SpyBot/Adaware), you'll be running fine.

Um...linux can't really have viruses, not nearly as easily as windows can. Because you'd have to compile and run it on the person's machine, as well as getting it on there first.

No wonder those IE installs are so big, each new version they need to include the entire Intarweb.


Wrong. Go back up and re-read about embedded IE functionality/modules in other programs.

And then realize that since youre most likely still using Explorer even if not IExplore, you are vulnerable to many of the same things.

I'm just waiting 'til i can get a shiny install cd of Windows for Warships(c)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/

That's not really true, you can make a compatible program statically linked to libraries so it runs on virtually everything. The reason why linux isn't AS suceptible to virii is because generally you don't login as the root acount, thus, the worst a virus could do would be wipe or corrupt your home directory and possibly other files that you have write access to. They could also steal passwords and such, but if you are careful, you don't have to worry much about it.

Linux distributions take a nice long look at the MS way of doing security and do just the opposite, so even if tons of people were making virii for linux, I still don't think the effects would be as dramatic.

Plus, linux companies don't generally piss people off the way MS does, so people don't have the motivation to make a virus to target linux.

Of course, that's all conjecture