Hi Ted,
I really did not want to enter in to this pointless banter however I do feel
very passionately about Microsoft and their Trustworthy Computing Framework
an initiative launched back in 2002. Microsoft have not always valued
security before functionality which is inherently wrong and caused them to
receive quite a bit of bad press (which in most cases was justified).
However since starting this TCF a completely new ethos for all developers
and product designers in Microsoft they have significantly increased
security in their new server products and Vista is the first test of a MS
programmers changed ethos in security on the client model.
I think they are doing a cracking job. Microsoft can sometimes not win at
all against the small minded simple folk who like to criticize Microsoft
purely for being Microsoft.
Let's look at your argument....
TedF said:
No I didn't, I just don't like all the new features, the extra
unnecessary security.
Please explain to me what unneccessary security is.. I assume you are
reffering to UAC... it's interesting as this technology has pretty much been
running in Solaris for many years. In most unix variants it is not normal
nor even accepted practise for any body to be logged in to the system with
the admin (or in this case root) account. Users would perform tasks that
requires additional privalledges in a command shell running as a privelidged
account using pseudo run.
One of the main reasons Windows XP is so vulnerable to attack from malware
is (sorry about this chap) but people like yourself that run with
administritive privs. I would be very surprised if you were not running
with them. Now I am not saying that XP was incapable of having locked down
accounts and security policys, quite the opposite infact, however out of the
box it is very insecure.
Now we cannot expect "home users" to harden their systems, no need anymore
Vista installs to a default configuration which has taken all this into
account. Now if the user attempts to run something out of the scope of
their privs windows will automatically psuedo run the process with the users
permission. FANTASTIC!
Seems to be Microsoft are dammed if they are insecure (ms sucks use linux
etc) and are dammed if they are secure (this is slowing me down prompting me
for stuff).
It's a fine balance... The security triangle has functionality and ease of
use on the bottom two corners and security on the top corner... the closer
you move toward security the further away you move from functionality and
ease of use.
I don't like that non of the 3rd party software work on Vista,
they all need updating.
Well your statement is inherently incorrect as I have run quite a bit of
Software designed for Windows XP and it's happily sitting with Vista. One
thing that you seem to forget is that Vista is still in development and 3rd
party software houses are still testing compatibility with Vista. In order
for any reasonable improvement to an OS there will inevitably be a few
compatibility issues in the short term.
I remember running XP RTM when it was released and having a few pieces of
software that would not run for love no money (can't remember what they
were).
Just my $0.02