VirtualLarry
No Lifer
Interestingly, I don't run any AV scanners, I don't enable any auto-update features, and I don't conduct any sort of financial transactions online, either. 🙂
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Do you hate Windows XP
Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
The key difference, and what makes it a bug, is that the system was designed to prompt for a password before access.
If you walked up to an NT workstation, and hit C-A-D to access the login dialog, and were able to hit CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-WinKey-F12, and Windows would magically let you login without a password, is that not a flaw? I mean, hell, you had physical access to the machine, why should there be any attempt at secure authentication at all? (Btw, that was a hypothetical made-up example, I have no idea what that key sequence does - hopefully nothing special.)
It *is* security 101, but that does *not* mean that it isn't a flaw - it is.
It most certainly was not ignorance, and it was truthful, hence not FUD either. How is it ignorance to point out that the software is apparently NOT working "as designed". The security implications of that are another matter entirely.
(However, in your above hypothetical example, if Linux supported EFS in the same manner that W2K/XP does, then yes, you would still need to brute-force the user's pasword, in order to decrypt their EFS cert., in order to decrypt the file keys, in order to decrypt the files, in order to access them. But please don't misunderstand me again - crypto is about the only step that you can take to protect your data, when the attacker has physical access.)
But while a wooden door may not be able to prevent a determined attacker with a crowbar from entering, it's still better than no lock on the door at all.
Or should car doors not have locks either, because it's simple for someone to just smash the window and let themself in to the vehicle?
Security is not about absolutes, it never was, there is nothing that is "absolutely secure". It is a spectrum of tradeoffs, between the cost of sucessfully breaching security for the attacker, and the inconveniences during operation for the defender. That software bug lowers the cost to the potential attacker to zero. I would say that is still more-or-less a security vulnerability, in the same manner as choosing a weak password. Except in this case, it's MS's doing, and you can't change that.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
After so many years of MS insecurities, pardon "us" for not giving MS the benefit of the doubt in this matter. ("us" collectively being the users of MS software that have been affected by prior security problems, in general.)
Quite frankly, color me surprised that they were able to do so. I would be interested in finding out more about the exact tested configuration used.
I will be even more surprised if that ever happens. If it does, then I would be willing to bet that it would only be under a cut-down minimal configuration of those OSes, like XP Embedded with the bare basic set of drivers and limited user-mode tools.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
Compile on a Windows XP-Based Computer Takes Longer to Complete Than on a Windows NT-based Computer
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=816073
Yes, but the point that you cannot seem to grasp is that the 2000 recovery console does not recogize an XP SAM file. When you are not prompted for a password, it does not mean you are automatically being logged in as an administrator. On the contrary, you are not being logged on at all! That's not a bug, that's exactly what it should do.
Because of this, the amount of things you can actually accomplish are somewhat limited, especially compared to using a third-party boot disk.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
I'm not sure that I understand the point of your response; about a month after XP SP2 was released, MS provided a patch to fix the bug. It was a software bug, the brokenness of localhost IPs wasn't entirely by design, or if it was, it was very poor non-RFC-compliant design that was quickly reverted. Really, it didn't gain anything security-wise, and only introduced unnecessary network-using app bustage.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
http://www.briansbuzz.com/w/030213/
According to that, you actually get *more* access, than an Administrator logging in with a password would have. How is that not a bug?
Funny you would say that, when not a single Linux distribution has achieved that level of certification according to the Common Criteria website. And slight correction on my part, Windows 2000 is certified at EAL4+. There are number of Unix's at 4 or higher and certain versions of Solaris are at 4.
http://www.commoncriteriaporta...sumer/index.php?menu=4
There are two PDF files for Windows 2000 at the link above. More information from Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/techn...cs/issues/w2kccwp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/press...9CommonCriteriaFAQ.asp
Ok, so 2000 achieves EAL4+ without resorting to a minimal configuration, but for some reason 2003 and XP will need to do so to pass?
Server 2003 and XPe entered evaluation for EAL4+ in August 2003. Given that it took over two years for 2000 to be certified, it will probably be a few more months before it is official. Stay tuned....
http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme/in_evaluation.html#w
Maybe you would like to read a primer on Common Criteria:
http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme...cs/cc_introduction.pdf
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
And... WTH does Linux have to do with anything that was being discussed? Color me confused how XP software bugs turned into Linux Common Criteria certifications. Personally, I'm not a Linux user, so I don't really care.
Although, what about SELinux, the NSA's very own Linux distro, specifically hardened for security? You would think that would pass whatever certification criteria the NSA uses to judge, since, well, they're the ones behind it.
Yes, I would, actually. Thanks for posting the first actual links to this stuff in this thread.
OK...Whatever.
I can believe the auto-update part, the A/V part is just stupid, and the part about no transactions online, I tend to doubt also. Even if what you say is true, you are part of about 1/2 of 1% of the people out there whom do not do any of those things and run Windows.
I'll admitt, I didn't run A/V either until about 2001 and never had a bad problem. Then I found Panda A/V and been with them since. I don't have to worry, it takes little resources. Running without A/V protection these days is like not wearing protection while playing the dating scene......it just isn't smart!
imported_Phil
Diamond Member
You are an enormous tool.
DonPMitchell
Member
The big issue at Microsoft with Windows XP was applications compatability. Up until Win2K, they were supporting two completely different operating systems, written by two teams: the NT kernel developed by Dave Cutler, and the "Win 9x" team.
NT was the first major operating system developed in a long time, and represented a good selection of 1990's technology. So you saw a lot of features like async I/O, critical sections, I/O concentrators, both kernel and user layer threads, and event handling. It would be some years before these features migrated into UNIX (remember, prior to BSD, UNIX didn't even have semaphores!). The goal was mainly the support of server applications, and to start a path to the next generation OS.
Win 9x had a different goal entirely. It was smaller, and oriented toward interactive client applications. It let applications pretty much do whatever, and adopted new features and standards very rapidly. We all know the price paid for that rapid evolution of course, Win 9x was nowhere near as stable as NT.
Merging the two functionalities in Windows XP was a technical task of enormous difficulty. People who haven't worked on large software projects may not appreciate who hard this is. Its all transparent to the end user.
Windows 98 did unbelievable things to adapt itself to important-but-crappy applications. It had three VM systems, two of which only engaged when certain applications ran (not necessarily MS applications!) to work around their sloppy behavior. I remember seeing a section of code that pushed a bubble onto the stack when running a popular email program, to prevent a bad pointer reference from crashing it. The memory bubble was named "EUDORA_PIECE_OF_CRAP". Hehe.
Anyway, applications compatability in XP is technical marvel. NT kernel merged with hundreds of thousands of application support features in Win 9x, but with without allowing the applications to violate the integrity of the kernel as Win9x had. People moaned about the delays, the last minute release of (crappy) Windows ME. But I am not surprised at all that it took many years.
NT was the first major operating system developed in a long time, and represented a good selection of 1990's technology. So you saw a lot of features like async I/O, critical sections, I/O concentrators, both kernel and user layer threads, and event handling. It would be some years before these features migrated into UNIX (remember, prior to BSD, UNIX didn't even have semaphores!). The goal was mainly the support of server applications, and to start a path to the next generation OS.
Win 9x had a different goal entirely. It was smaller, and oriented toward interactive client applications. It let applications pretty much do whatever, and adopted new features and standards very rapidly. We all know the price paid for that rapid evolution of course, Win 9x was nowhere near as stable as NT.
Merging the two functionalities in Windows XP was a technical task of enormous difficulty. People who haven't worked on large software projects may not appreciate who hard this is. Its all transparent to the end user.
Windows 98 did unbelievable things to adapt itself to important-but-crappy applications. It had three VM systems, two of which only engaged when certain applications ran (not necessarily MS applications!) to work around their sloppy behavior. I remember seeing a section of code that pushed a bubble onto the stack when running a popular email program, to prevent a bad pointer reference from crashing it. The memory bubble was named "EUDORA_PIECE_OF_CRAP". Hehe.
Anyway, applications compatability in XP is technical marvel. NT kernel merged with hundreds of thousands of application support features in Win 9x, but with without allowing the applications to violate the integrity of the kernel as Win9x had. People moaned about the delays, the last minute release of (crappy) Windows ME. But I am not surprised at all that it took many years.
JerkyBoyz0
Member
You hit it right on the head. A lot of people dont understand how to make an operating system work flawless with all these applications. Its funny it reminds me of a time i was working in IT in a school, and we had our linux boxes for network storeage and other things. Anyways we had a brand new linux box i forgot the distro, but we were trying to install coldfusion on it. It took them about 3 months to get it to work correctly. There were so many problems getting it to install its not even funny. Now based on that it is VERY hard to get certain apps to work on certain OS's and i think Microsoft and their windows line has done it better then linux and their software apps. Of course it IS an opinion. I dont not support it with any facts so dont jump all over me. Microsoft didnt get to where they are by making crappy products. Linux is an excellent operating system for networking and things along those lines but Windows is the best choice for home use and for the end-user. People dont want to know how it works , they just need to use the computer to type a report, and check e-mail, and loads of other things. I think Microsoft has made all their products easy to use with little or no knowledge of computers at all. Anyways have a good holiday everyone.
Hate XP, have quadruple boot machine, 2 w2k's, 1 xp sp2, just 'upgraded' tonite, with some idiotic problems caused by sp 2 overwriting the old xp ntldr/ntdectect.com files that worked fine with new ones that cause boot error on w2k sp 4, go figure, anyway, hate xp, never use it except for testing, just installed xp sp2 just to see how it works for support calls and the like, but never have used xp, prefer clean/relatively simple w2k, don't run IE or Outlook type products, all firefox/thunderbird so security isn't that much of an issue, although protecting the system from Microsoft f#$k ups is, nice waste of time tonite on that.
Never play games, life's too short, so that's not an issue. Have never found anything w2k doesn't do that I need done, except maybe the cute xp slideshow viewer feature in windows explorer, that's literally the only thing xp has that I like, everything else about it I dislike sufficiently to have decided to make w2k my last MS workstation OS for real work, it's linux from here on out.
Ha ha, good christmas humour, you must have missed the last 5 years or so of lawsuites, they got where they are by intimidation, illegal monopolistic practices, very much like a high tech mafia, you talk to the feds, we make sure you go out of business.. most major guys were unwilling to testify against ms unless 2 or 3 others also would, catch 22 since no one wanted to be the first, ms would wipe them out, read all about it, it was very well documented, dos isn't done until lotus won't run, etc....
they got where they are by driving all competitors out of business, or forcing them to let them take them over, buy them out, outright steal their algos etc. read more and you might not say something this silly again, happy holidays
Never play games, life's too short, so that's not an issue. Have never found anything w2k doesn't do that I need done, except maybe the cute xp slideshow viewer feature in windows explorer, that's literally the only thing xp has that I like, everything else about it I dislike sufficiently to have decided to make w2k my last MS workstation OS for real work, it's linux from here on out.
Ha ha, good christmas humour, you must have missed the last 5 years or so of lawsuites, they got where they are by intimidation, illegal monopolistic practices, very much like a high tech mafia, you talk to the feds, we make sure you go out of business.. most major guys were unwilling to testify against ms unless 2 or 3 others also would, catch 22 since no one wanted to be the first, ms would wipe them out, read all about it, it was very well documented, dos isn't done until lotus won't run, etc....
they got where they are by driving all competitors out of business, or forcing them to let them take them over, buy them out, outright steal their algos etc. read more and you might not say something this silly again, happy holidays
JerkyBoyz0
Member
Well ya they drive companies out of business. Thats a basic business practice. Wal-Mart is doing it all over. Microsoft is a business, they dont like competition. I personally dont like Microsoft products, but i am a computer technician. If it wasent for Microsoft we wouldent have jobs. We make a business off of Microsoft's blunders. Keeps us in business, so we sorta like Microsoft. When SP2 came out we had like 10 customers in a week because SP2 crashed machines. Yes that sucks. H2 do you think microsoft is the only company that does illegal things? I am not a moron but u have to respect Microsoft, they are a business. They make good business decicions. Mabey not in the past 5 years. Ya they do bad things, but so do 99% of other corporations.
Trust me h2, i am on your side. You dont need to attack me. Just I dont "hate" microsoft. Hate is a strong word.
I would also suggest to anyone not to use IE or Outlook Express. They are the most targeted programs on the internet.
As h2 suggested firefox/thunderbird are great products. I like XP over W2K. I like the feel of XP. W2K has a lot less crap on it, its nice and clean.
Trust me h2, i am on your side. You dont need to attack me. Just I dont "hate" microsoft. Hate is a strong word.
I would also suggest to anyone not to use IE or Outlook Express. They are the most targeted programs on the internet.
As h2 suggested firefox/thunderbird are great products. I like XP over W2K. I like the feel of XP. W2K has a lot less crap on it, its nice and clean.
Well, that's not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that protecting your privacy is important no matter how you look at it. This isn't about trusting no one anywhere at anytime. This is about ensuring that you should only trust the people you want to trust and that no one (be it an individual, corporation, organization, government agency, and/or whatever) should have the right to just radnomly snoop on what people do with their computers. When you do credit card and other finincial transactions online with places like ebay, Paypal, and such, you are explicitly giving them authorization to collect some personal information in order to sucessfully pay for what you order online. But they are the only ones who know about it and nobody else is allowed to watch what you do or collect that personal information for an online transaction you complete with a specific individual or organization. That's the point of your privacy.
I also agree with VirtualLarry on the aspect of trust regarding some of these large corporations. I am with VirtualLarry on the fact that I don't use Windows Update either because I don't trust Microsoft because I am very suspicious that much more information is collected about what's on your PC than what Microsoft claims. I just download security updates manually from the MS security bulletin and every time I install one, I scan my PC with Spybot and Ad-Aware just to be sure. I even disable any services that send any information to MS such as driver information. I do it all with my LAN cable unplugged and then plug it in when finished. Fortunately, I am lucky enough to not have to deal with Windows product activation because I got a legal copy of the corporate version of Windows XP from my workplace.
<< If it wasent for Microsoft we wouldent have jobs. We make a business off of Microsoft's blunders. Keeps us in business, so we sorta like Microsoft. When SP2 came out we had like 10 customers in a week because SP2 crashed machines. Yes that sucks. H2 do you think microsoft is the only company that does illegal things? I am not a moron but u have to respect Microsoft, they are a business. They make good business decicions. Mabey not in the past 5 years. Ya they do bad things, but so do 99% of other corporations. >>>
I've said the same thing many times, part ot if anyway, I like viruses, they keep my clients terrified, great for business. As to the rest, no, sorry, MS is not just like any other business, dream on. There are many car companies, many gas companies, etc. These businesses understand that they are in an environment that has competition. MS has never been able to grasp this simple concept, they want only one company running your computer, them. This is what makes them fundamentally different than other businesses, it's like it was years ago with IBM and ATT, Standard oil earlier in the united states, finally the state came in and said, no, you are a monopoly, you can't keep abusing your position, and forced breakups. MS avoided this possibility by making a huge campaign contribution to the Bush campaign, the penalty was gutted, they walked away. Not like a normal business at all, in any way. Standard profit margin of 30% year in and year out, 50 billion dollar cash resevoirs. No other business around can claim that type of performance, that's because they are a monopoly, not because they practice good business. That's why IBM, Sun, Apple, Novell etc are increasingly supporting Linux/Open source, they are fully aware of the problem, and are working hard to rectify what the state should have but didn't correct.
Don't believe the MS hype, MS doesn't provide jobs, Open source stuff does, locally. High skilled jobs too, not the cookie cutter junk you learn with MS, I've gone that route, it's one of the biggest regrets I have, wish I'd learned basic Unix instead of wasting my time with MS Windows, I'll rectify that this year, but Windows getting worse and worse.
By the way, what I despise is the fundamental programming philosophy that underlies not just MS products, but most commercial large scale apps, the direction this stuff is going in is getting more and more annoying, Norton AV slices out bigger chunks of possible configurations, user friendliness makes stuff less and less useable. Etc. It's a philosophy that strikes me as becoming dated though still very profitable, but other philosophies are more powerful, and are attracting the best and brightest, firefox, tbird, linux, etc, are just the beginning, that's why MS is beginning to stockpile patents, they know they can't win this one by fighting fair.
I've said the same thing many times, part ot if anyway, I like viruses, they keep my clients terrified, great for business. As to the rest, no, sorry, MS is not just like any other business, dream on. There are many car companies, many gas companies, etc. These businesses understand that they are in an environment that has competition. MS has never been able to grasp this simple concept, they want only one company running your computer, them. This is what makes them fundamentally different than other businesses, it's like it was years ago with IBM and ATT, Standard oil earlier in the united states, finally the state came in and said, no, you are a monopoly, you can't keep abusing your position, and forced breakups. MS avoided this possibility by making a huge campaign contribution to the Bush campaign, the penalty was gutted, they walked away. Not like a normal business at all, in any way. Standard profit margin of 30% year in and year out, 50 billion dollar cash resevoirs. No other business around can claim that type of performance, that's because they are a monopoly, not because they practice good business. That's why IBM, Sun, Apple, Novell etc are increasingly supporting Linux/Open source, they are fully aware of the problem, and are working hard to rectify what the state should have but didn't correct.
Don't believe the MS hype, MS doesn't provide jobs, Open source stuff does, locally. High skilled jobs too, not the cookie cutter junk you learn with MS, I've gone that route, it's one of the biggest regrets I have, wish I'd learned basic Unix instead of wasting my time with MS Windows, I'll rectify that this year, but Windows getting worse and worse.
By the way, what I despise is the fundamental programming philosophy that underlies not just MS products, but most commercial large scale apps, the direction this stuff is going in is getting more and more annoying, Norton AV slices out bigger chunks of possible configurations, user friendliness makes stuff less and less useable. Etc. It's a philosophy that strikes me as becoming dated though still very profitable, but other philosophies are more powerful, and are attracting the best and brightest, firefox, tbird, linux, etc, are just the beginning, that's why MS is beginning to stockpile patents, they know they can't win this one by fighting fair.
JerkyBoyz0
Member
Ya u have very good points. I think is MS dosent do something soon, i think you might see some other OS come mainstream. Now how soon i dont know but I know a lot of people are fed up with MS. Longhorn is a very scarry OS. I heard some crazy stories about it. I am not going to elaborate because i dont know how true they are. I am not gonna comment on the things you said about MS because I dont know how true all that is. I have to disagree on the MS dosent provide jobs because they really do. I think we gonna just agree to disagree. Unix is a good OS to learn. I dont think MS Windows is a waste of time. 90 Percent of computers have windows (I think, its around there). I will agree windows is getting worse but u gotta know it.
Win 2K seems to be superior in terms of having less extra junk. It's pretty rock solid and I wouldn't advise anyone to upgrade to XP unless they need some of XP's extra features.
XP Pro _does_ seem to have less problems with dll hell, although I've heard that it isn't perfect in this respect.
I run XP Pro at home because it has Cleartype and I have an LCD monitor. This is one major reason (for me) to upgrade.
I've turned off a lot of the extra junk, but I still think XP is more sluggish than 2K. (I need to upgrade my computer hardware! 🙂
OS X is really fun to use and is very well done. Linux and Solaris can also be very fun to use, although OS X is probably better for general desktop use.
My Mac is an older one, but OS X seems "snappier" than XP Pro on more recent hardware. Linux usually performs better than XP, but the newer versions with a full Gnome or KDE setup have a higher hardware requirement than used to be the case with Linux.
Isn't it great that we have so many choices? 🙂
XP Pro _does_ seem to have less problems with dll hell, although I've heard that it isn't perfect in this respect.
I run XP Pro at home because it has Cleartype and I have an LCD monitor. This is one major reason (for me) to upgrade.
I've turned off a lot of the extra junk, but I still think XP is more sluggish than 2K. (I need to upgrade my computer hardware! 🙂
OS X is really fun to use and is very well done. Linux and Solaris can also be very fun to use, although OS X is probably better for general desktop use.
My Mac is an older one, but OS X seems "snappier" than XP Pro on more recent hardware. Linux usually performs better than XP, but the newer versions with a full Gnome or KDE setup have a higher hardware requirement than used to be the case with Linux.
Isn't it great that we have so many choices? 🙂
I perfer Windows 2000 over Windows XP.
Reason 1: For some odd reason, my boot times are actually faster in Win2k than in XP. I don't know why, but the difference is significant. My system is only about a year old, and is a decent gaming system, so it isn't because I have crap hardware.
Reason 2: Everything feels much snappier in Win2k. After running XP nonstop, especially after a few days time, it seems to become more sluggish, to the point of needing a reboot. I don't get this problem in 2k, and often leave it running for weeks at a time.
Reason 3: No activation. I don't really have a problem with activation per se, but if I can avoid having to do it, then I'm a happy camper. Plus, XP has an annoying habit of requiring you to reactivate the product if you make any major hardware changes, and sometimes won't even boot up, causing you to hage to reinstall.
Overall, I perfer Linux to Windows (especially ubuntu, god I love ubuntu), but when I need my gaming fix, I need Windows, and win2k just does it better for me. I am however keeping an open mind, and in fact just acquired a copy of the new MCE 2005 to try out. If I find I like it better, then my opinions will change, but I'm definitely not getting my hopes up.
I say just use what you are most comfortable with, and what accomplishes the tasks you need to accomplish. There's no reason to war over things so trivial as operating systems.
Reason 1: For some odd reason, my boot times are actually faster in Win2k than in XP. I don't know why, but the difference is significant. My system is only about a year old, and is a decent gaming system, so it isn't because I have crap hardware.
Reason 2: Everything feels much snappier in Win2k. After running XP nonstop, especially after a few days time, it seems to become more sluggish, to the point of needing a reboot. I don't get this problem in 2k, and often leave it running for weeks at a time.
Reason 3: No activation. I don't really have a problem with activation per se, but if I can avoid having to do it, then I'm a happy camper. Plus, XP has an annoying habit of requiring you to reactivate the product if you make any major hardware changes, and sometimes won't even boot up, causing you to hage to reinstall.
Overall, I perfer Linux to Windows (especially ubuntu, god I love ubuntu), but when I need my gaming fix, I need Windows, and win2k just does it better for me. I am however keeping an open mind, and in fact just acquired a copy of the new MCE 2005 to try out. If I find I like it better, then my opinions will change, but I'm definitely not getting my hopes up.
I say just use what you are most comfortable with, and what accomplishes the tasks you need to accomplish. There's no reason to war over things so trivial as operating systems.
JerkyBoyz0, it's all true, straight out of the Wall street journal, they covered this stuff intensively during the main trial, a lot of stuff came out. None of this is a secret, it was all documented very well, you're just not going to be reading it on msnbc anytime in the near future.
Windows isn't going anywhere soon, it's got a huge lock on how people perceive computers and working with computers, that's part of the problem, people are losing the ability to distinguish the MS way from other ways of doing things. that's what happens when you have a monopoly. All telephones in your house in USA used to be ATT, period. Long distance rates were very high. ATT got broken up, competition happened again, rates dropped massively. Back then it was hard to picture a world where all calls didn't go through ATT, that's because they had a consumer monopoly. Just like MS does today, in fact, MS was so worried that they would get 99% of the desktop market that they actually funded Apple at one point when Apple was having financial problems. They needed to keep the illusion of competition going at that critical point in their legal games.
Obviously MS creates jobs, they just aren't very good jobs, or very interesting. This is the problem with proprietary systems in general, they are good for the companies making them, but not so good for the rest of us, except aunt milllie, who will happily run whatever OS Redmond throws at her for years to come, as will many corporate networking guys who don't want to deal with learning how to do things differently.
Windows isn't going anywhere soon, it's got a huge lock on how people perceive computers and working with computers, that's part of the problem, people are losing the ability to distinguish the MS way from other ways of doing things. that's what happens when you have a monopoly. All telephones in your house in USA used to be ATT, period. Long distance rates were very high. ATT got broken up, competition happened again, rates dropped massively. Back then it was hard to picture a world where all calls didn't go through ATT, that's because they had a consumer monopoly. Just like MS does today, in fact, MS was so worried that they would get 99% of the desktop market that they actually funded Apple at one point when Apple was having financial problems. They needed to keep the illusion of competition going at that critical point in their legal games.
Obviously MS creates jobs, they just aren't very good jobs, or very interesting. This is the problem with proprietary systems in general, they are good for the companies making them, but not so good for the rest of us, except aunt milllie, who will happily run whatever OS Redmond throws at her for years to come, as will many corporate networking guys who don't want to deal with learning how to do things differently.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
