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.

[Michael G.]

A Double Package:

How's this for a Microsoft scheme? When Vista ships, charge double the price. Offer in two separate packages: 1.The Microsoft Vista OS. 2.The Microsoft Security Pack(Microsoft's Anti-Spyware and OneCare Anti-Virus).

What concerns me about Vista is its memory requirements---I've heard that it's a memory hog, and that it will probably run slowly or not function correctly on computers with less than 512MB of RAM. Many older computers, and some newer ones as well, will need to upgrade---an added expense. OneCare, which is Microsoft's beta anti-virus program, requires at least 256MB of RAM to function correctly. When you add this to the other security programs that will be required, as well as any other programs that a person wants to use, the memory requirements for PCs running Vista will be beyond the range of many. This may be a bad selling point for Vista.

[microsoft slayer]

new minimum memory requirement is 1 GIG

2 GIG for optimal performance...

[microsoft slayer]

You'll need to buy a new PC to run vista

MS is scheming with Dell.

[Michael G.]

Hey Dude! You're getting a DELL!

What ever happened to the guy in that commercial? Dell was pretty cool for awhile(at least on TV).

I'd like to add that it seems Microsoft is the one with major memory problems. They seem to have forgotten the average consumer. In return, the average consumer may as well forget Vista. Perfect amnesia, all around.

I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Microsoft has struck a deal with Dell, or some other computer manufacturer. A NEW operating system for a NEW computer---maybe this should be Vista's slogan. If the average consumer resists Vista, it may be their only slogan.

[microsoft slayer]

I'm getting a MACBook PRO

Screw MS and stupid asta la vista.

[Andrew J Glina]

Silly

Microsoft is the desktop OS king and will remain that way as there is nothing that compares to it as a package. Steve Jobs knows this and that is why he doesn't care enough to even try to compete. Generic graphic cards, USB, BSD based operating system and now Intel CPUs and a booter. Apple are running out of things that make them special. "Think Different" indeed. Yet the Mac fans still proclaim the superiority of an increasingly similar platform. It is beyond my comprehension, but I cannot see it changing soon. Apple always focus on the big money makers and the Mac has never been the success that the Apple II was.

Apple (and Apple fans) have been claiming superiority for a long time. From a 1992 pamphlet I have Apple not only claimed that Apples were faster than Windows, but also that people were 15% more productive when using them. In a 1993 pamphlet they claim that a Quadra was 40% faster than a 486 of the same MHz (33). But back then, I believed that the Mac was the future too. For me, Windows 95 changed my mind. It may be insulted by many today, but Win95 was an excellent comprimise of WinNT stablity and Win 3.1 hardware requirements, and it had many features that Apple fans had to wait till "Mac"OS X for. I keep these pamplets (as well as many others for Commodore, Atari and Acorn) to remind myself of the difference between potential and reality. (They are a good laugh as well, especially a Atari Falcon one that boasts of VR capabilities. I highly recomend watching the Apple Lisa TV ad with Kevin Costener in it.)

But stay in your bubble Mac fans. You will all be dual booting Vista soon and deep down you know it. Apple have made the mistake of screwing over their developers for the third time. It it good that Apple do write their own applications as they will be one of the few that write Mac Apps soon. I know what it is like to cling to a dying platform as I did it with the Amiga and the Acorns. But I learn from my mistakes.

[jonnie savell]

We're going to have to see about that.

You are making a lot of claims that require a good deal more
substantiation than you have provided.

First, the software is special. Run Windows XP and then run OS X
Tiger. Look at the rendering on both. Toggle among tasks and
look for the response in the UI. I will simply invite everyone to
take this challenge (which really doen't require much time).

Second, WinNT did have many features that were way ahead of
anything Applet had for eight years. This is true (and you can
thank Dave Cutler of DEC for that just as Applet fans can now
thank Bill Joy and legions of others working on BSD). But NT's
implementation was not superior (it was better than Mac OS at
the time, this is true). It was only when Microsoft released
Windows 2000 that the implementation was good, although far
from great. Additionally, the UI experience was still relatively
poor. Apple was losing the race until September 2001. That was
when Mac OS X Puma came out and it compared relatively
equally to Windows XP. By the time Mac OS X Jaguar came out, I
believe that OS X pulled way out in front of XP. We can agree to
disagree on this point.

By the way, If you like Microsoft, then the OS you ought to be
championing (not having Vista right now) is Windows Server
2003. That is the OS where every Windows NT/2000 deficiency
was corrected. And if you champion Windows 2003 Server (no
client version), then you are going to have to take a look at Mac
OS X Tiger Server in order to make a fair comparison. Do this
next weekend!

Furthermore, it is not fair to compare Vista demos with OS X
Tiger. OS X Tiger is not Vista's competition as Tiger is already
out and Vista is not. Everyone has seen great Vista demos
(including me) showcasing all sorts of pretty things. Vista's
competition will be Mac OS X Leopard which is due at the end of
2006 (or early 2007).

Did Applet get arrogant with the Mac? Yes, and they were rightly
punished in the market place. Did Microsoft security problems
constitute a breach of consumer trust. Absolutely. And they
ought to be punished in the market place for this.

And you can say "yeah, but they won't get punished!" and laugh
at me. But, this competition will not be settled by old TV adds
and old generalizations. Hei, compare the new Macs with the
new Windows machines (either now or at the end of 2006).
Dude.

Sincerely,
jonnie savell

[Lynn_S]

Worse than silly

It's either gullibility or FUD/shilling:

"Microsoft is the desktop OS king and will remain that way as there is nothing that compares to it as a package."

You left off "unless they begin to comply with the remedies imposed on them by the various judicial systems." M$ is number one because they are a predatory monopoly and they haven't stopped being one because they can still get away with it. If you don't know better than to spout such nonsense then you aren't just an innocent dupe.

[zaznet]

The Apple Mac

You've seriously missed what has been going on with the Mac over the last couple of years. So you laugh at 1980's TV spots and the like. Developers will continue to support the Mac for more than it being "different" than Windows. They will do so because the Mac has a large enough market of customers to be profitable, with less competition.

In the Windows world you have 20 options for every application. In the Mac world you have 2 or 3 options in most applications. This narrow market means that more of the Mac users are using the same products.

If the Mac has 10% of the market, and you can capture 100% of that, instead of 5% of the Windows market, the Mac market is bigger for you.

It is all a matter of scale.

[Ty Tyson]

Andrew is a braindead loser

nt

[Ian Eisenberg]

RE:Silly

Windows is the de facto OS because it is bundled with EVERY
other box made. Not because it is necessarily the best choice.
To say that the platforms are increasingly similiar ignores some
facts:
1. They really aren't that similiar.
2. The similarities that are there are due to MS constantly adding
features that OSX has brought to market first.

It is interesting that you keep marketing material as some proof
of decision making. NEVER listen to marketing... from anybody.
Funny I am not hearing anything from developers on OSX about
being "screwed" over. Just the opposite in fact.

The thing in your remarks I find interesting is describing Win95
as a compromise. That is what Windows is always composed of...
compromises. Get a Mac, use it for a while and make an
informed comment, not something based on old pamphlets.

The bubble

Uh, me thinks you need to break out of the 1990's bubble you're
in. It's 2006 for cripes sake!!!! OS X and Apple has gained share
since 2001, and the digital living room technology (iTunes+OS
XFront Row) that Apple has developed will help to increase
market share.

You obviously have let technology pass you by with your
ignorance.

[jonnie savell]

poor security ought to be punished.

It is incorrect to say that we ought to purchase this product to
gain security. We purchased XP and we made a mistake.

Why should we pay again to get what should have been delivered
before? In fact, we shouldn't. They abused the trust that
consumers placed in them.

So, "crimes against humanity" was felt to be too extreme. But the
analogy is not without merit. Consumers should remember
Microsoft's past offenses; Consumers should not forgive.

Sincerely,
jonnie savell

[tahbasco]

speak for yourself...

I purchased XP and I'm completely happy with it. No security issues, no worries. Then again I actually know how to use a computer so viruses, spyware, etc. don't bother me at all.

After using Windows 3.x through XP, I have to say XP is by far the best and a vast improvement over 98 and ME. ME was the epitomy of crap. I'll never forgive MS for putting that junk out.

[DocNo]

How about recent events...

..such as Jobs becoming embedded into Disney?

DRM only works if EVERYONE plays ball...I think it could be a great differentiator for Apple/Disney. Even if they had a milder form of DRM, it would create a huge perception problem for RIAA/MPIAA

Not saying I have a crystal ball or inside track, but I don't think this is a slam-dunk by any stretch.

[jonnie savell]

Fair enough but ...

Hi.

Let's accept as fact that you haven't had any problems with
viruses and spyware. Let us also accept the fact that you have
been completely happy with all those versions of Window.

But, yours is the rare position advanced. I have heard a good
deal more on the other side. So, I'm not changing the horse I
place my money on.

Sincerely,
jonnie savell

[schubb]

ah, but...

It is human nature to raise a fuss about that which we do not like, but to say nothing about that which we do.

[Pascoli]

end users actions

it's funny how almost no one blames end users for security problems. if your os as a delete all files function and some one sends you an attachement that call that function and you run it, whose fault is that? yours for being careless? or the os company for not making it hard enough for you to run your own programs and code? if you think of it, most worms, if not all worms windows xp had in recent memories could have been avoided by simply turning on its rudimentary incoming firewall. most vulnerabilities were patched long before the actual attack. os x has had dozens of vulnerabilities patched as well by apple. why are they called vulnerabilities if no one can exploit them, why does apple bother fixing them?

[sadchild]

we've heard THIS one before....

remember how XP was touted as super-safe and it is going to be the most secure OS ever blah blah blah.

then right after release came the PnP nightmare and XP was called 'the OS released with the worst default security vulnerability EVER'.

i didn't buy the BS from m$ last time, i'm certainly not falling for it this time either.

[sadchild]

forgot to hit the "U"

forgot to hit the U. my last message should read UPnP.

[Andrew J Glina]

No, I don't remember it

It is probably because it did not happen.

you mean security against ourselves

The real security he is talking about is for the entertainment industry, not you and me.

[KsprayDad]

Dear Microsoft

Dear Microsoft.

I will NOT be buying my next computer with Vista because of security.

I will be buying it because: Windows it what I'm used too...I have the most options for day to day things I need to get done...the company I buy my computer from will support it.

I will expect security to continue to be from 3rd party provider and my own good sense.

[mofo111]

Re: Dear Microsoft

"Dear Microsoft. I will NOT be buying my next computer with
Vista because of security. I will be buying it because..."

I think that your complaint would have had more of an impact if
you had just said "I will NOT be buying my next computer with
Vista" and then stopped. By going on and saying that you'll be
buying Vista anyway, you just reassured Microsoft that have
locked you in and that you'll continue to buy their products
regardless of how buggy and insecure they are. Welcome to the
power of monopoly control.

[Maccess]

The company you buy it from will support it...

"I will be buying it because: Windows it what I'm used too...I have the most options for day to day things I need to get done...the company I buy my computer from will support it."

Hahahahahaha.. hahahahahaha... pardon me, I can't stop laughing........

Are you one of those people who believes those "important information" documents you've received with the EULA?

How can a company which just makes the hardware possibly support the OS that was bundled with it, particularly when the software publisher itself licenses the software "as-is?"

Any updates you get to your operating system come from the goodness of the publishers' hearts, and basically to avoid the kind of PR disaster than millions of imploding computers would create.

In no way is the publisher obligated to fix or support any problems in their software.

Don't believe me?

Read the EULA, then go figure your odds of getting support from the "guy who sold you the computer."

[Steve_a]

Loosing the plot?

I'm confused: I should buy Vista because of its "security". But Vista features "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 my secure O/s is going to go out onto the Wifi Network and sniff out other Vista based PCs... which implies MY Vista PC will be announcing its presence to others... doesn't sound very secure to me!

[mofo111]

Then why not buy OS X for the security?

Here's what Paul Thurrott, (aka, "Microsoft fan-boy") had to say
about Vista/Longhorn security in a "Vista versus OS X Tiger"
review on his website:

"Final Security Thoughts: In short, Mac OS X is more secure than
Windows today, and will likely remain so even after Windows
Vista is released."

Nuff' said!!

(http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/
winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp)

[Andrew J Glina]

Because it would be silly

You don't buy a Mac for the security. If you want a secure OS you get BSD, which is the only reason for the improved security. As he says...

"much of it is because it is simply based on others' work"

If you want a pretty interface and like Apples software then you buy a Mac. Besides, you probably should not quote that guy. For one, you didn't quote the full summary...

"In short, Mac OS X is more secure than Windows today, and will likely remain so even after Windows Vista is released. That said, Microsoft is making some valuable and concrete changes to Windows Vista with regards to security, and while it remains to be seen how this system will fare in the real world, I have little doubt that Vista will be far more secure than its predecessors."

...and two he agrees with me that...

"Because the OS X user base is so small, few hackers ever bother to try and attack the system."

...a point Mac Fan Boys generally refuse to admit. In short, he is saying that when left with a choice of only MacOS X or Vista, he would choose MacOS for secuity. Wow. Personally, I solved that problem with a good UNIX based firewall that also is a web cache and DNS server for my network.

Nuff' said indeed.

True

Yeah, it's unfortunate that most users wouldn't know that kind of information. I suspect many users will be hesitant to upgrade to Vista right away anyway since they are used to XP, just like the people who didn't upgrade to XP from ME or k, ect. It's also safe to assume that many haven't heard of Vista either, and that computers shipped with Vista should be adequate to run it. The flashy graphics can be turned off too, but I think PC's running Vista native should be running atleast 768mb of RAM(3x 256).

[Michael G.]

Good Point.

I believe that your comment was meant for me, Aaron, in response to our earlier discussion above. I wish that automatic "six in nesting rule" of "no replies accepted" could be altered---since we ran out of space. So I'll add my reply here. It is truly unfortunate that some Windows users won't be willing to upgrade, for their own reasons or through ignorance. It gives cause for concern, when it comes to speculating whether or not Vista will be a success. As for myself, I'm a little more concerned about the memory upgrade because I purchased my Compaq Presario at the end of the XP line---not at the beginning, as you did with your HP. For you, an upgrade is in the normal course of things, as your computer is probably over two years old. Mine at present is only seven months old. Yet we're both in the same boat---I'll probably be upgrading the RAM on my computer in less than a year's time, just as you will.

[Michael G.]

In Addition...

Aaron:

Could you provide the many Windows users here with some good reputable sources for obtaining RAM on the cheap, since you've already upgraded at least once? Windows users will be needing this information soon, old or new, and the information would be useful to many that are concerned with upgrading their conputers to suit Vista.

[Michael G.]

Otherwise...

A good evening to you. Thanks for an interesting and pleasant debate.

[tonymaclen1]

Who will protect us from Microsoft?

Vista may be deemed secure, and Microsoft may offer security software - for more money. But who will protect us from Microsoft? Afterall it is their products at risk!

Because, they seem to be pushing the likes of Symantec out:
http://arcon5.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=492

[tech_junky]

better security or a change so the hackers have to learn new skills

personally, the whole security stance is crap: sure they might have marginally improved the actual security of the system as a whole, but most of this false sense of security is that, since the filing system will be different, the hackers and virus writers will have to learn how the system works - so give em a few months minimum to a year or 2, then theyll be spewing out malicious code at the "super uber secure vista" - giving Microsoft just enough time to figure out their own system to make their "yearly" Service Pack (MS is supposed to release SPs every year right? how long has it been since SP2 came out???)...

[jayeager]

If you would like to learn more about Widows Vista Security Features check out this site. It is an excellent resource (and a free one) for learning about Vista.

http://www.microsoft.com/events/series/technetvista.aspx