Comments on: Allchin: Buy Vista for the security
Windows chief Jim Allchin says stronger defenses are a key selling point for Microsoft's new OS.
Windows chief Jim Allchin says stronger defenses are a key selling point for Microsoft's new OS.
December 27, 2009 9:15 PM PST
December 27, 2009 7:45 PM PST
December 27, 2009 4:50 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
But before you buy, replace your PC, your graphics card, buy a new notebook..
Compatibility? Well.. some will work, most of them won't, upgrade your software..
Security.. haven't we heard the same song with XP SP2?
Hardware compatibility... some work, some will not. Your DVD-ROM is not fully RPC2? won't work. Your codecs are unsigned? no go..
Yeah, sure, buy Vista.. AstaLaVista for your money!
Windows or not we will have a hard time freeing ourselves from content control. New media formats will require it, end of story. Unless you'd rather skip multimedia altogether, you're probably going to have to accept a little rights managment.
Root disabled by default?
metadata search?
These, I already have. Malware free and liking it.
Built on a Mac.
Idiot.
Just think, OS X might possibly be as good as Windows XP and Vista someday, because Apple could get off its increasingly transparent high horse and sell me an operating system that will run on my existing hardware (like XP, like Vista). Windows NT and 2000 had hardware compatibility lists. It's not as if it's an impossible task to capture 50-75% of the existing hardware market based on support of NVIDIA/ATI/INTEL 8xx+ chipsets.
*scoff* Yeah, right. It'll never happen.
Mac OS X is like great Chinese literature. If you're fluent in Chinese, then kudos to you, but if you won't provide a translation for the rest of us, then it may as well not exist.
Linux has matured into a fantastic system for people to use. It's
DRM/spyware/virus free.
Or, go with a Mac, and get the best features in Vista NOW, and lose
all the problems with Vista.
things they are bringing in Vista and comparing it to what we
already have, and have had for quite some time, in Mac OS X.
For example, the article says Microsoft is "introducing" the
protected administrator privilege level. That sort of thing has
been around for a long time in other operating systems. And,
yes, I know XP has non-admin users, but there are lots of
problems with programs not running properly.
People love to say that the Mac OS has security through
obscurity. Although small market share is no doubt helpful, Mac
OS X has been using "protected administrator" privileges for
years. If Microsoft is now touting this feature as being a big
security boost for Windows, then other operating systems that
have it already should be recognized for having superior security
architecture now.
You want to use linux? Fine. I'm not going to tell you it's crappy. But you can show me the same respect. I am so tired of hearing linux users badmouth everything but their choice. It's getting old.
Why don't you do something novel like tell us what nice features linux has, how easy it is to do what you want to do, how simple it is to set up and load drivers. Tell us the wide selection of software available and how easy it is to install and configure. WHY DON'T YOU!?!?
That's like automobile manufacturer whose cars consistently have
the worst crash results year after year saying buy their latest model
- for "safety!"
lol
B4 u retire pls buy all the media companies so that they provide free music, movies, tv shows and softwares. That solves DRM issues.
perhap one day then people will put u in e leagues of Marx and Lenin. Imagine in 2100 people worshipping William H. Gates III and Gatesism.
Enjoy your Vista Honeymoon period, it ain't gonna last.
This article is aimed at the gullible and unsavvy web users, who are out of touch with the reality of software security.
Please don't let this guy give you a false sense of security, purely based on words, than factual information on how secure the new Vista really is.
Good day.
Instead Billy Boy has to get bit in the *** with 2K and XP security holes from heck to the extent that an e-mail "mandate" needs to be put out to the company that security comes first. Well duh. I'm not spending 3 figures on a software package just because MS got a clue late in the game. FU Microsoft.
Maybe it's just me, but read the earlier interview and now this one, and let me know what you think.
When I re-read that interview, and now this current one, I get that "AMWAY" feeling. You know, like I should put my teflon suit on or something so nothing will stick.
On a positive note, I'm glad he stopped using terms like "super-happy" and "super-hard-core."
Buying the VistaOS for security purposes when it also allows "People near me" to share app's and doc's? Excuse me?
Microsoft will never solve the security issues because they're a target, and their culture invites people to target them.
Security issues are always going to be an issue with a Microsoft OS. Even IF they eventually did solve the issues, could you ever completely trust that they did?
Hahaha! I thought the exact same thing. Meet the new OS same as the old OS.
Wow! what a nice back-door for hackers! I am sure they will have a lot of fun with this one when Vista is out.
Perhaps it was put their purposely by Microsoft marketing machine so that they could advertise for Vienna in the same way.
"Yeah, I know that Windows Vista was slightly crappy with that PC sharing feature and all, but we have super-security in Vienna!"
Hey, that is the way Microsoft do their business.
Put enough holes around so that they can be patched up in the next "Super OS - <put some name here>".
Wait, when did we hear that before?
Oh, right, when we had Windows 95,
then when we had Windows NT,
then Windows 98,
then Windows 98 Second Edition,
then Windows Millenium, which can't really be used anymore if you need to run any decent software, then we heard it again with
Windows 2000,
then Windows XP. Got the Home version? Get the Pro version at twice the price for even greater security.
The story of "improved, enhanced" Windows Security is getting old, Jim.
Tell us more about your forthcoming retirement.
Tell us what you'll be doing when your company launches Windows Vienna (the successor to Vista), which will be "even more than secure."
What will you be using then, Jim? A Mac or Linux box to make sure your memoirs aren't obliterated by the next piece of malware charging through all those secure Windows boxes?
They figured by building the OS from the ground up that it would take crackers years to find new exploits to harass Vista users with. Oooh, but wait...look at all the shiny GUI's. We'll be too busy drooling that we'll never notice the next zero-day exploit that blasts Vista a new one.
Look people. It's like politics. It's never going to change until the very roots of Microsoft changes. All the so called security that Windows users had been waiting for should've been there with Windows 2000, Windows XP, and 2003 Server. How long do you have to wait until the core mechanics of an OS are made responsibly? Why did we have to wait until now to finally rip Windows worst security liability (Internet Explorer) from being an integrated part of the OS? Why couldn't Microsoft fix all the exploits that spyware uses to install itself on your box with ninja like stealth? Why did you have to wait until now, or so Microsoft says?
It's a simple answer. It's so they could make you buy into their new OS to make you "feel more secure". Notice that word, "feel". It doesn't say you WILL be more secure, just that you'll have the delusion of security. The delusion is what keeps the bankrolls at Microsoft fat and happy. It almost makes me smile everytime that delusion is shattered in headlines about an exploit that Microsoft new about all the way back with Windows 98 (WMF exploit), but never chose to patch.
So, right now you must ask yourself several questions. Do you want to upgrade you OS to Vista that doesn't really promise more security (like Microsoft's ever been good on promises anyways), be restricted by DRM (Digital Rights Management) restrictions that could potentially control every aspect of how you manage your data ans systems with near Gestapo like abilities, and pay top dollar for it, too?
There are many other OS solutions that will offer you the security, software, support, and community that actually cares about making good and usable software without limiting what you can do. There are other solutions that aren't driven by greed, propoganda machines. The good thing is that most of the software I speak about won't cost you a single dime, and it's legal.
Sincerely,
A Happy SuSE 10 Linux User
(and yes, it was actually easier to setup than Windows)
What do you expect? For Allchin to admit that they copied this from Linux and this from OS X? And for the sake of marketing, why even mention the competition in an interview?
Some Microsoft articles did admit copying some security concepts from Linux/Unix for Vista. But there's no Microsoft article admitting they copied something from OS X. Who cares? It's obvious in Vista anyway... And I like them!
:D
Have you really tried them yet? Are you a beta tester of the Vista OS?
You know, it all sounds well and good, but we're really not going to be able to have an informed opinion on the Vista OS until we've actually used it.
I use both OS' - XP and OSX. If I do upgrade to Vista, and if those Vista features don't work as efficiently as they do in OSX, I'm going to be frustrated everytime I use my PC.
system for the whole package. in a word... tiger
This is just the next Microsoft Brain Fart.
You want security... DON'T CHOOSE Microsoft!!!
Linux is much more robust and secure and they patch it a lot quicker too!
I can't stand Macs, but hey... I'd still recommend them over Vista!
Walt
(Sorry, I kept clicking submit under the wrong categories, this has got to be the fourth one of these comments. This is where I meant to put it)
users were vulnerable all but six days. When Vista users can say
they have gone at least six months without a critical vulnerability
then MS will have some reason to say that Vista is more secure than
XP.
But, IMO, when that day comes Microsoft will have to compete with
headlines like H*ll Freezes Over, and Pig's Fly.
around him about future technologies...
Jim, Dude, get a clue....Microsloth "Security" is an oxymoron.
When oh when will Billy "Bob" get his act together & throw in the
towel.
Citizen Gates & Big Brother Ballmer need to RETIRE like Paul
Seahawk Allen did years ago & move on with their life.
DOJ was right when they wanted to break MS into three
companies, that would made them agile & competitive to solve
their technology & legal problem & actually BE INNOVATIVE.
Instead of endless beta programs sold as real program & all of
us are their security holes & virus riddled guinea pigs...
Vista = Microsith's Last Hope.
Windows CEMENT promised solid security like a block of cement - unbreakable. Its looks were made to adorn your sitting room- but it could not be switched on!
Windows CE + ME + NT = Windows CEMENT, Rock Solid.
- any more 15 year old bugs?
- by Rangebz January 29, 2006 11:45 AM PST
- I am not 100% sure about this but didn't MS have to remove the metafile vunerabillity from vista when it was discovered last month? If they copied that 15 year old security vunerabillity how can they be so sure they haven't copied across all the other bugs?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (189 Comments)Oh and is it just me or that "people near me" feature looks like a major security problem waiting to happen? The fact the machine is willing to broadcast that its windows vista is a risk. If its on open wifi all some hacker has to do is sit in a cafe and when there is a security problem in vista (and there will be) they can get a nice list of windows vista machines to attack, such a useful feature. I suppose you could use it to send targetted adverts. Find all vista machines: "It looks like your using vista. You really need to buy spyware scanner, want to buy ours?"
The real problem is soooo many people are allowed to get away with putting spware on machines becuase its in the EULA, or other such stuff.
And whats worse is major companies SUPPORT using hostile tools on there customers machines. Look at sony, we want to stop piracy so we put rootkits designed to comprimise windows machines to people who bought our CDs. What idiots, didn't they release that thoose people BOUGHT THE CD. They wanna be stopping people who download pirate copies not annoy the people who are trying to do things legit.
Oh and on the subject of anti-piracy, you guys REALLY have to drop all the registration stuff. My PC got hacked cause of registration! Windows was whining about it going to blow up if I didn't dial the internet or summit. As I was downloading updates and registering a damn virus got it. Ironicly windows update was proberly trying to update the fix for the flaw that let it in. Unfortunatly you can't get all the patches of dialup by the time a virus hits your machine :(.
May I suggest hardened mode for connecting to the internet for downloading patches the first time?
Oh and for securing IE, Get rid of it. Unfortunaly this is hard to do in XP because it is so tightly woven into the OS, which is proberly why IE bugs can comprimise a machine even when not using IE, yay.