Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Buy Vista or Else

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the make-you-an-offer dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 539

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!"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588612)


Security (5, Insightful)

Fusen (841730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588613)

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 (5, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588697)

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 (2, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588824)

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 (0)

imunfair (877689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588872)

Doesn't take long to get your graphics card set up on OSX - and what is that based on?

/Cue secondary whining about how there aren't many games for Macs.

Re:Security (4, Insightful)

zootm (850416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588886)

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 (1)

Transmogrify_UK (902981) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588894)

But there aren't many games for Macs.

I've actually just replaced my desktop PC with a 12" Mac Powerbook. Love it. Few driver issues but nothing I can't get by without. What's more concerning is the number of websites which refuse entry to Macs saying the site requires Windows 98/2000/XP.

Err.. why?

Re:Security (1)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588856)

Aside from the fact that there are programs that run on Windows that don't on OpenBSD...

Re:Security (5, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588701)

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 (5, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588826)

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.

But... (0, Troll)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588834)

It's not a new codebase. It's more stuff piled on top of NT 3.1...

They've not honestly used a new codebase for much of anything since Win95, Win 3.1, or DOS.

Re:Security (0, Flamebait)

LeonGeeste (917243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588703)

What? Windows has historically been secure. Last year's Windows security budget at Microsoft was over $40 million. When you think about all the people who use Windows, it's amazing what its resilience is. If you don't open suspicious email attachments, have a firewall, and scan for viruses, you'll be fine.

The only reason hackers haven't done to Linux what they've done to Windows is because there are far fewer people using it, and the ones that do have extra security measures up. But make no mistake: once Linux cracks, say, 10%, they will find a jagged shard of glass in the Linux kernel and they will fuck you with it. I guarantee it.

Re:Security (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588750)

I don't really follow you. Linux is used all the time in the server market, and a hacker probably cares more about high-profile servers than some random home user. So, why will having a bunch of random home users change anything?

Re:Security (1)

LeonGeeste (917243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588775)

Well, servers are hard to hack regardless. Who tries to get ads to display in a server's GUI? You know?

Re:Security (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588777)

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)

Re:Security (1)

!equal (938339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588798)

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

That is assuming that VMWare doesn't have any security issues to worry about. Wouldn't the "truly paranoid" execute the said files on a separate machine that isn't connected to anything and then completely wipe the machine and reimage it from a known good image when they are done?

Re:Security (1)

The Ilia (933432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588830)

...and then they destroy the machine with a sledgehammer, just to make sure.

Re:Security (1)

The NPS (899303) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588837)

Windows has not historically been secure. Just because an experienced user can keep it clean doesn't mean that it's secure.

Re:Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588842)

It's also because Linux, the OS and the culture (this is important), is built with security in mind. Furthermore, Linux isn't a homogenous OS. There is no default install, or a new version released every few years (or a small number of patches in between). For any given Linux install, certain components such as glibc, zlib, the kernel,, etc. may be at different versions, with different patchsets depending on the distribution. How can you easily write a virus that can spread as rapidly in the heterogeneous Linux world as it does/would in the homogeneous Windows world?

Re:Security (5, Informative)

bender647 (705126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588730)

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:Security (1, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588747)

If you want security and you must run windows apps, the only way to achieve it is to run windows under VMWare or Virtual PC on Linux, BSD, or Mac OS X.


Re:Security (2, Insightful)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588790)

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 (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588752)

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 (1)

joNDoty (774185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588753)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588795)

Cue the linux trolls.

Re:Security (4, Insightful)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588869)

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...

Slow news day (-1)

Gordigor (789419) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588619)

...let's print something bad about Microsoft.

Re:Slow news day (2)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588652)

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

Re:Slow news day (1)

kubevubin (906716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588729)

That's exactly what I was thinking. Is Slashdot really that desperate for 'news'?

Ooh er (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588620)

The east end thug from the armando iannuchi shows springs to mind:

"If you don't buy Windows Vista and put it on your computer... I will fucking kill you"

Also comes to mind is... (5, Funny)

Vorondil28 (864578) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588839)


"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."

really? are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588622)

Isn't this about NX and other real upgrades to security which benefit more than just the OS, rather than a downgrading of security in XP?

Or perhaps it's really a euphemism about DRM...

linux? OS X? (3, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588624)

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? (2, Interesting)

Kevbo (3514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588675)

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? (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588711)

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? (1)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588811)

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 targetting Mac OS X.

Re:linux? OS X? (2, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588782)

I think Apple is already doing this

Nope. When I worked there, it was made very clear to us that Apple doesn't talk about security as a reason to switch. We emphasized ease of use, etc.


The problem is implementation rather than design (4, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588702)

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:linux? OS X? (0)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588733)

maybe they should say "upgrade to linux for the security" (or macOS X)...

If security is a concern perhaps one should be a bit vary of Linux due to the big changes (ripping out core components) in the Linux kernel that happens quite often. Even deciding on a 802.11 stack [] seems difficult:

It's high time that Linux get a serious effort going on a generic 802.11 stack, as it seems we are in danger of having every new wireless driver invent one if we do not.

Linux put great emphasis on performance, not stability nor security, and this is well known. Offering a stable (i.e. usable) Linux kernel is up to the various distributions.

"Security" is in vogue, but it appears to be mostly market speech with little, if any, content.

Re:linux? OS X? (5, Informative)

DaHat (247651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588745)

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 [] which has some links to some videos on some of these improvements and more on Channel 9 [] .

Re:linux? OS X? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588873)

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 various purposes. As for Metro, the only thing it really brings to the table is XML. PDF already does everything Metro will, and will probably be much less encumbered than anything Microsoft releases as "open". (I also suspect that you could set per-application mixer levels in ALSA for any application not using OSS emulation, but it would be an undocumented hack and application dependent, rather than an OS feature)

microsoft... (0, Offtopic)

tkny (260036) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588626)

all your base are belong to us!

quote? (5, Funny)

Prong_Thunder (572889) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588628)

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

GUI (-1, Troll)

cyberfunk2 (656339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588629)

I was thinking more along the lines of Buy it.. or be stuck with that awful old GUI...

Finally, we've gotten really good at copying Mac OS , we promise this time !

People actually pay for articles like this (5, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588630)

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 (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588678)

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

Secure? (5, Informative)

SpasticWeasel (897004) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588632)

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? (1)

ajwitte (849122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588812)

Oh, like this [] ?
Already available for Mac OS X and Windows 2k/XP.
I bet there's an implementation for your free *nix of choice as well.

WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588634)

Slashdot, who loves to post taglines of "Is this the end of the Internet?" or "Is Linux dead?" or "Microsoft security is going to destroy the world" now posts something that makes fun of Microsoft using security to sell their product?

Guys, make up your mind. It's very clear that no matter what Microsoft does, you guys are against it, even if they start embracing Linux. I mean, what would Slashdot do if Microsoft became pro-Linux? They would have no one to demonize... maybe they'll start hating Linux too?

SECURITY!?! (3, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588719)

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!?! (2, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588867)

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 to contribute. That's it. If Linux was a closed model OS the way Windows is, and if it was more mainstream, you'd see many of the same problems popping up there. So let's not demonize MS eh? They do a good enough job of making themselves look bad; it's not neccesary for every linux-geek in existance to join in the witch-hunt.

Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? (1)

clevershark (130296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588808)

Well, this thread is about the silliness of Microsoft claiming "greater security" when they have a poor track record on this issue.

I'm glad I could clear that up for ya.

Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? (1)

yoprst (944706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588815)

I'm sure that the most profound effect would be that many of them actually will start using Linux.

Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security? (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588885)

Slashdot, who loves to post taglines of "Is this the end of the Internet?" or "Is Linux dead?" or "Microsoft security is going to destroy the world" now posts something that makes fun of Microsoft using security to sell their product?

Well if MS's idea of security could leave the world open to destruction, then why would they use it as a selling point again? Look at it this way, all versions of Windows thus far have had serious security issues that have lost people lots of money and time.

Or we will shoot this dog (5, Funny)

HeavyMS (820705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588640)

The link to rule them all : keting.jpg []

Re:Or we will shoot this dog (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588724)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588810)

they had another one with a girls lips and....something on them, and the caption "we did it!"

Re:Or we will shoot this dog (1) (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588828)

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?

Re:Or we will shoot this dog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588829)

Well, I have a cat named Linus Torvalds. What are the odds of this ad making me buy Windows Vista? :)

Upgrade! (4, Funny)

Jane_Dozey (759010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588643)

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

NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for security (1, Redundant)

no_pets (881013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588645)

If Vista is really serious about security it will make users login by default into a non-admin account. This will not be a selling point as most users hate having to login. Or at least has been my professional experience.

Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur (2, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588728)

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 this issue, you are right. It should be something like Mac OS X does by default, you shouldn't be able to log in as administrator by default. That would at least send the application developers a message that developing your software to assume admin access is stupid.

Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur (1)

ajwitte (849122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588841)

I am currently logged into Mac OS X from the default account. It's an administrator account. Until I changed the relevant settings, the system didn't even require my password to log in to said administrator account. I'm comfortable with using my admin account for everyday use, though, because the system requires my password before doing anything 'administrative', aside from copying applications into the /Applications directory. It's not unlike having your everyday-use Linux account in the sudoers group. Not especially insecure, but at times very convenient.

Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur (2, Informative)

LocoMan (744414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588884)

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 that just check for admin access on startup but don't need it, just that the developers was lazy by not checking wether it ran on limited accounts. In those cases, Vista default will be to report to the program that it's running with admin priviledges, but actually run it with limited priviledges.

I'll try to find the URL and post it later, I know I read it in the last couple of days or so.

Re:NOT A Selling Point-But a "must have" for secur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588735)

Yes, users will run in a non-admin account. But they won't have to login (except for admin tasks - a bit like sudo). And IE runs in a sandbox.

Lost trust (4, Interesting)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588650)

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 (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588763)

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 version that came out more than 2 months ago.

And the same was true of Mac users. OS 9 was the best thing since sliced bread if you were to listen to the Mac users at the time. A few months after OS X came out and they got over the intial cognitive dissonance, all you could hear about was how much OS 9 sucked from mac users.

Re:Lost trust (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588799)

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? (5, Funny)

kamikaze2112 (792393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588653)

'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? (2, Funny)

pvt_medic (715692) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588846)

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

Vista will not be secure (2, Insightful)

Tufriast (824996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588659)

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.

Bin Laden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588660)

Bin Laden is gonna getch ya - if you don't update.

The jokes keep on coming. (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588665)

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. (5, Funny)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588742)

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

Alright! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14588672)

Come on guys, only three more negative MS article before you reach your daily quota.

Not to say I wouldn't like to see more than 5, so keep up the good work!

I knew it! (4, Funny)

Ardeocalidus (947463) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588676)

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 (4, Interesting)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588687)

"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 (5, Insightful)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588706)

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 (1)

che.kai-jei (686930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588759)

wow . you really took the tony soprano crack at the end of the fine article summary and ran with it.

analyze this!

Re:Its your choice (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Poodle (15365) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588859)

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! (4, Insightful)

vga_init (589198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588715)

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

Re:Shiny shiny! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Poodle (15365) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588794)

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

Easy (0)

Life700MB (930032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588721)

Just forget of getting software updates and drivers, just as they did with XP.

Superb hosting [] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

Keeping the masses on the upgrade merry-go-around (1, Redundant)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588723)

It is not in Microsoft's interest to develop and release a very secure operating system. Of course if any version of Windows was truly secure enough for the masses, then most people wouldn't upgrade from that version until they purchased a new machine with a new version of Windows preinstalled or ever. We all know this so it comes as no surprise that Microsoft would try to sell this version of Windows to be more secure then XP. They will do the same when Blackcomb (or whatever the next version is code-named) is going to be released. Anyone that continues to buy into the marketing propaganda that Microsoft spews will receive no sympathy from me. Personally I would not touch Vista due to its DRM-infested crap anyways.

marketting is fun to watch (1)

louden obscure (766926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588726)

i love the majority of beer commercials. but i have had to stop drinking cuz i can't handle alcohol.
same with microsoft. great marketers, those ms guys. but my last PC purchase came with winme. seems i can't handle msware any more than i can hold my liquor. i hope they bring back the guy in the butterfly suit, those ads were fun to watch...

Upgrade or keep crashing (5, Insightful)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588762)

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.

Yes, they charge for it. However... (2, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588767)

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.


H9000 (529061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588771)

people may have to wait a additional decade to get the same security level that is already available on many other Operating Systems today for free. my 0.02 Cent

Security? (1)

Kirsha (201264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588772)

For who?

Me, the user, or the companies? Because they have to protect them from us, since we are all pirates anyways.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Oblig. (0, Offtopic)

DysenteryInTheRanks (902824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588791)

Dr. Melfi: "Sounds to me like Anthony Jr. may have stumbled onto existentialism."

Tony Soprano: "Fuckin' Intanet!"

Of course... (2, Insightful)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588793)

...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? (2, Interesting)

black hole sun (850775) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588797)

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? (1)

idonthack (883680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588863)

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.

heres the source code (1)

Cannedbread (841645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588881)

i just finished hacking into microsofts code repository. this is the vista sourcecode.

#include WindowsXP.h
#include DRM.h
#include even_more_pointless_interface_crap.h

int main()

After extensive analysis, you too will realize that "sharing" will become a thing of the past. and microsoft will be thanked heavily by the *AA

Market Opportunity for Macs and Linux (5, Insightful)

kai.chan (795863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588817)

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.

Buy Vista or Else.... (2, Interesting)

kgutter (950070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588822)

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 implemented strong anti-piracy feature , which will not "allow you to update" if you don't have a "genuine" vista ,which is more laughable as it takes one malicious program to make genuine to un-genuine Have a nice day.

Isn't XP secure? Is MS selling defective software? (0, Flamebait)

tvlinux (867035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588845)

If they are selling something defective and unsecure, is that not against the law? Should you not get a free replacement of a OS to one that is secure? Are they going to warranty the new product in term of security? Are they just out to make money or are they doing this for the consumer?

We ALL know the answers to these questions, so why use Vista when here are other OSs that fix the problems.

Violin cases (1)

Zygote-IC- (512412) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588865)

"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."

I remember when I migrated from Win98... (0, Flamebait)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588874)

... to Linux. Haven't had any upgrade issues since.

Read this or the terrorists have already won . . . (5, Insightful)

pariahdecss (534450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14588880)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?