Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my mind, Zxian manages to be on right and wrong on this issue at the same time.
As I submit, the following largely correct historical facts.
1. Prior to the design of the Windows XP OS, the main stability threats with previous Microsoft GUI based Windows Os's were in the internal design flaws of the Microsoft Windows OS's themselves. As XP may be the arguably the first OS Microsoft got right. But even if you buy that argument, which may have been largely true in 2002, we still have to realize the Win XP OS was designed in an era before "malware" threats on the internet reached critical mass.
2. What followed was a long and ever evolving battle between "the bad guys" who wanted to hack your XP computer for fun and profit, and "the good guys", who wrote computer security software that could patch windows XP security holes for profit and sometimes free gratis public benefit.
3. For a long time, the "good guys" prevailed in that battle, as the so called "smart computer user", could set up a multi layered soft ware defense and not only keep ahead of the hackers while still keeping their XP OS largely safe for threats.
4. "IMHO", Microsoft has behaved very badly, and has acted totally against the public interest in failing to patch and keep their own XP OS safe and instead Microsoft seeks only commercial profit in the long and ever evolving battle between hackers and defenders. And when at the same time, computer and internet safety is in the national interests of nearly every nation in the world, world governments join Microsoft in being hot beds of apathy.
5. Maybe in a better world, Microsoft would have rapidly patched the security holes in the
Windows XP OS, instead of patching them super slowly and partially, and even if Microsoft hit a brick wall and really had to offer a new OS, it would have been a vast improvement without the downsides we instead got. As a new mindset similar to the military industrial complex rules the day. As each new Microsoft OS gets ever more over bloated, the bottom line becomes, it takes ever more hardware to run the new OS. A win win for Microsoft and PC makers as your still perfectly good old PC will no run the new OS. As its win win win for Microsoft and new computer makers and a lose lose lose for world consumer who have to buy all new computer hardware. and software.
As we can finally get back to answering the thread question. Yes both Vista and Windows 7 are better designed to resist on line malware, but has it been worth the biannual $700.00 upgrades? As for computer security, in today's age, they all differ in quality. While no single app is perfect. Making it a game of Russian Roulette for the consumer. But at least we have testing organizations like AV comparatives that can tell us, year to year how the various AV apps stack up. And when free Avast and free Avira consistently out preform free MSE, my Momma's little boy is not going to trust just MSE with his computer.
But we are still just talking late 2012 here, as the hackers get ever smarter, we can't end or even reduce the malware threat without the co-operation of world governments and OS makers. And as long as only Microsoft retains a total monopoly in running the huge bulk of x86 legacy software, its hackers delight as they need to only target Microsoft vulnerabilities rather than the non specific different vulnerabilities of other OS makers.
Facebook
Twitter