Within 30 days, Microsoft will have a tool available to remove spyware from Windows PCs. The tool comes from a small company called Giant Company Software that Microsoft recently acquired. The anti-spyware tool will initially be free, but Microsoft has stated that it may eventually charge for the program. Update: It seems that another company has co-ownership of the code that Microsoft bought in this acquisition.
It’s been argued here at this forum that Internet Explorer had to be built into Wiindows because modern operating systems have to have web access.
How about being able to detect and eliminate unwanted background tasks? Not an OS function? It will be amazing if Microsoft is able to convince people that this is an additional feature worth paying for. “Sure we left the door open, but we can close it for a few more dollars.”
1) Write an OS full of holes
2) Write a browser, full of holes, but convience the users they really need this, even on an OS with holes
3) Watch bug after bug pass by without doing something
4) Buy a company that offers a “solution” for one of the holes
5) Convince the users that they need this update, even on an OS full of holes and with a browser full of holes
6) Charge money for this, because in the end, the hole is gone, sort of
7) Sit back and relax, money is pooring in, so why bother about holes ?
I’d like them to focus their efforts on coding an OS and web browser that are less susceptible to spyware / delivery of such.
There are already a ton of anti-spyware tools…. and, to be honest, i trust third-party tools more than one branded by MS… even if it has been co-written by another company.
1) Write an OS full of holes
2) Write a browser, full of holes, but convience the users they really need this, even on an OS with holes
3) Watch bug after bug pass by without doing something
4) Buy a company that offers a “solution” for one of the holes
5) Convince the users that they need this update, even on an OS full of holes and with a browser full of holes
6) Charge money for this, because in the end, the hole is gone, sort of
7) Sit back and relax, money is pooring in, so why bother about holes ?
If they approve the multi-user function in Windows, so that user do not execute userland programs with Administrator privileges it should help a lot.
I did little search in microsoft.com, same information there: “Details of the Microsoft solution beyond the planned beta, including product plans, pricing and a timeline for delivery, are not yet available”. I think this sentence could be marketing error – they all usually talk about products and prices:)
So far Microsoft has not charged money for basic additions/components (IE, WMP, drive compression, defragmenting, remote desktop etc – most of these bought from other companies) to their OSes – I don’t think it will do that this time. It’s not in their interest, after all.
Everybody here seems to be missing the significance of this news. A few days ago MS also announced that they are going to bundle AV software with Windows. That, and this news (which is kinda old, I posted this on eXp Zone yesterday
http://www.expert-zone.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=vi… ) signifies a change in MS’ policy.
A change that 3rd party software suppliers ain’t gonna like.
“The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all his customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who by peddling second-hand, second-rate technology, led them all into it in the first place.”
-Douglas Adams, re. Windows 95.
Is there anything MS can actually make themselves, its seems to me its a investment conmpany wich only buys tech and then put a MS stamp on it and even worse by obstructing any possiblity of innovation….
How much work does your average Linux distributor do? Do they design their own media player? Do they design their own windowing system? Do they design their own browser/engine? Do they design their own office suite? Etc. etc. etc.
Now you again.
Who, in their right mind would trust Microsoft with the security of your data?
1. They can’t get the security right on their own products today. Even after Gates said it was Job #1 a couple of years back. Hell, they are so pathetic when it comes to security they can’t even secure their own products and data.
2. They aren’t the most ethical or consumer friendly company in the world. Would you trust them not to call home to Remond. Not me.
I’ll use 3rd party apps, thank you very much.
Isn’t this kind of a conflict of interest?
Asuming they charge money for this product wouldn’t it just give them a reason not to repair holes in Windows? I mean instead of providing a free patch that fixes the hole they can just say “hey go out and buy Microsoft anti-spyware and you’ll be safe.” The same goes for the anti-virus they bought (which I’m not sure if they are bundling with Windows or selling).
Anyhow I’m not saying they would pull something like this (it sure would irk a lot of customers off) but this whole idea does seem like a rather bad one.
Any thoughts on this?
You forgot the BIG one. MS didnt even create DOS, they just bought it from Seattle Computer Products (QDOS) back in the 1980s.
1) Buy an OS full of holes (Qdos, Seattle Computer products)
2) Layer a cheesy GUI on top of it
3) When you finally figure what the Internet is, license a browser, full of holes, but convince the users they really need this, by bundling it into the operating system
4) Give the licensed browser away for nothing in an attempt to put another company out of business and make bogus claims that it is an “inseparable” part of Windows
5) Force the company you licensed the “free” browser from to sue you in an attempt to gain ANY revenue from the browser THEY wrote
6) Watch bug after bug pass by without doing something, ANYTHING, call them “features”
7) Buy a couple of companies that offers “solutions” for the ignorant stupidity of tying normally separate products like browsers and instant messaging, among other, directly into the core of the operating system. (RAV and Giant)
8) Bundle these products into Windows and call them “inseparable”
9) Charge money for this, because in the end, the hole is gone, sort of
10) Sit back in your mansion on Mercer Island and relax, money is pouring in, customers are locked into your products, so why bother about holes?
11) Buy up all the remaining property around you on Mercer Island so that you don’t have to actually “see” any of the “common” people stuck using your lousy products
12) etc………….
“If they approve the multi-user function in Windows, so that user do not execute userland programs with Administrator privileges it should help a lot.
”
Now thats providing all developers follow that trend. There is a good chunck that develop and test in Admin mode on the box. And in serveral cases, config’ng the users app requires the admin to do.
Its a history of bad practices that must be rectified.
“Is there anything MS can actually make themselves, its seems to me its a investment conmpany wich only buys tech and then put a MS stamp on it and even worse by obstructing any possiblity of innovation….
MS bought NT tech
MS bought IE tech
MS bought OFfice tech
MS bought anti virus tech
MS bought anti spy ware tech”
It is obvious that MS bought AV and this latest anti-spyware firm and even the original code which IE was based upon(although it has changed so much since then you gotta give them credit for at least some independent thought), but where did MS buy Office or NT? MS I recall managed to get a former VMS programmer to start the NT project, but I don’t recall them buying someone else’s code base to start a ‘new’ OS(see Apple buying NeXT). Office wasn’t innovative in that MS just put together multiple applications in the same box with a uniform installer. MS I am pretty sure they didn’t buy the code base for MS Word. I don’t recall the name of the company, but MS did buy the company that started Powerpoint codebase. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would mean that MS wrote all but one application in Office and therefore it would be somewhat of an exageration to say that MS bought Office. Considering the security problems with Outlook, the macroviruses, and the buffer overruns that MS’s in house products have spawned I would disagree with the notion that MS can’t create anything without buying something, but the stuff that they create didn’t become dominant because it was hands down the best product obviously.
Is there anything MS can actually make themselves, its seems to me its a investment conmpany wich only buys tech and then put a MS stamp on it and even worse by obstructing any possiblity of innovation….
What’s a problem with buying technology? If you do a little research, you can see that MS tends to buy good technology, often best from what’s available (not always of course – this would be impossible).
Little example from developing side – their VS familiy includes (or did include) InstallShield installer, CrystalReports based reporting, Apex and VideoSoft (currently joined with ComponentOne) data grids, Foxpro based ADO recordsets – all these are considered best (or one of the best) components of their repective area.
Such approach is way faster/cheaper than developing all things itself, so are solutions more compatible with (sometimes widely used) original components (although not with each other). Usable and relatively bugfree component takes many years to develop and use – why to reinvent wheel and develop it again?
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/microsoft/microsoft1.htm
>What’s a problem with buying technology?
If you only buy software to dominate and/or obstruct the market
i have problem with that.
>If you do a little research, you can see that MS tends to buy good
>technology,
If you had done a little research you would have know already that
MS and good technology is often the oposite.
It is not about why, or, and if its more about the way they do it…
ITs also the way on how the are trying to get market share wich
upsets me not because the buy tech.
Put in a virus/worm scanner and it would be ok if the extra charge doesn’t reach ridiculous proportions.These days a virus scanner is handy on allmost every platform.A more advanced configurable firewall as well on top of a more modulair aproach doesn’t need to confuse non skilled/interested clients but would attract and help to get a better selling image and power for OS itself,as well.Both fortune 500 and the OS developers can pretty well learn from eachother if the patent hystericas won’t block better and usefull/profitable interaction.MacOsX is just one of the good examples of innovation.A windows/linux combination that supports all MS (office) apps,games natively on top of everything on or avaible to the Linux (user)land *natively* could become a killer OS.
Change? Huh? More like continuation. It’s been a long-term Microsoft policy to pull popular third-party functions into the OS; the browser and the email client are the two most obvious *big* ones, but there’ve been countless smaller tasks done by third party software that, once they got popular enough, MS wrote into the OS instead. The *new* part of the policy would be to make people pay for it, if they were to do that (it’s hardly proven yet).
I’m missing the bit where Bas said *anything* about Linux. He just criticised Microsoft. Maybe he uses a Mac?
Could not ignore the names in the news
Just so you know the history of NT, NT was not created by Microsoft. Check out this article it’ll give you an idea of the evolution of Microsoft
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
“Windows NT finally appeared to be a step in the right direction. At least the NT product line (which includes Windows 2000 and Windows XP) is the better one.
‘NT’ stands for ‘New Technology’, presumably because Windows NT is one of the few products in the history of Microsoft that they didn’t buy. Instead they hired David Cutler, who had been involved with the development of VAX VMS at Digital. (VMS was a successful and innovative industrial OS in its days, and Digital had been working on it since the 1970’s.) Cutler took some 20 former Digital employees with him, and he and his team began the development of NT. The project eventually involved hundreds of other coders and testers, but Cutler and his core team of VMS engineers provided most of the know-how that went into NT’s kernel code.”
There’s a lot more there about NT’s history but don’t delude yourself NT wasn’t created by MS engineers.
If you do a little research, you can see that MS tends to buy good technology, often best from what’s available (not always of course – this would be impossible).
Really? If that was the case then they would not have to by a spyware remover for their own OS! What’s up with that, how about better coding. They are just putting a bandaid on a bigger problem!
Also how do we know what Microsoft bought is any better then Ad Aware or Spybot.
I am not sure if you understood anything i tried to say but that prob. because of my bad enligsh sorry about that.
>Guess you better stop using computers there hos cause every
>company out there buys technology to dominate some aspect of the
>industry.
There are diffrences and there are companies that ALSO listen to their customers. Apple has a far better product and tech. than MS on every level. I really like their attitude more than MS.
>Well obviously you don’t use any of the technology with a statement
>like that.
I deal with their so called best tech. every day and i am not impressed in any way.
>If you need to research it then you aren’t exactly using it on a daily
>basis because someone who is using it dosen’t need google to know
> wtf its capable of.
Google? when did that came up? i did you ment their desktop search tech. ?
>HAHA. So you are upset that a company is buying technology to get
> marketshare ?
No again, when will you finally start reading instead of posting?,
Its notbecause they buy tech. its how they try to dominate and obstruct
the market.
>You also can’t handle how they do it ? Thats rich. Go back and hide in
>your closet my friend, make sure the tin foil is wrapped tight and
>don’t forget your blankie.
I do not need MS for anything i do so best solution is not to use their products.
There’s a lot more there about NT’s history but don’t delude yourself NT wasn’t created by MS engineers.
Which part of this are you having the most trouble with:
“Instead they hired David Cutler, who had been involved with the development of VAX VMS at Digital. […] Cutler took some 20 former Digital employees with him, and he and his team began the development of NT. The project eventually involved hundreds of other coders and testers, but Cutler and his core team of VMS engineers provided most of the know-how that went into NT’s kernel code.”
I’m curious. By your standards, which _does_ “create” new things ?
I suppose I should have posted more than that single quote, my mistake. But from what I understand is the NT kernel is based on the VAX VMS kernel, which was another companies work bought out by MS. It was a solid OS but because of MS’s influence what was a good OS was essentially degraded. They took what was a good underlying structure and reduced it to a security nightmare, although better than the DOS based 9x series of OSes, by adding full backward compatability, and integrating non critical applications such as IE into a hybrid kernel.
My point is that they bought someone elses work, if only the minds behind it as opposed to the actual source, and ruined it through poor decisions in terms of implementation. This is something MS is notorious for and that was my point.
I hope that you took the time to read the link that I posted because it showcases a series of poor decisions in respect to security and stability and unethical business practices on MS’s part. I’ve spent a fair amount of time checking to make sure the information in the article I linked to was valid and for the most part I believe that it is based on fact.
So once again NT was not created by MS. IMO MS is simply a remarketing company with there key goal being making money as opposed to innovating technology. As an IT proffesional I feel that a lot of actions throughout MS’s history have slowed the advancement of technology and that offends me.
I am not a zealot but I believe that that true technology companies should focus on innovation to make money not making money using any means possible. If I’m wrong so be it. But feel free to bring my attention to any technology that MS truly innovated as opposed to marketed.
And with all due respect when some one posts a link as well it would be appreciated if you took the time to read the entirity of the article linked to before commenting.
I am not a zealot but I believe that that true technology
[i]But feel free to bring my attention to any technology that MS truly innovated as opposed to marketed.
MS HIS (2004) (SNA server/gateway).For connecting multiple mixed client subnetworks with a mainframe or super computer,cluster.
I’m interested. You wanna provide a little more info so I can check it out.
I suppose I should have posted more than that single quote, my mistake.
You shouldn’t rely on anything from that site. Even ignoring the author’s blatant bias (and its obvious negative effect on any “professional” judgement he may be capable of making), there’s content that is simply wrong. For example, his timeline about the whole Windows 3 release, IBM-Microsoft split, switch-focus-to-Windows thing is all wrong and his writing off of Windows 95 as an “application-level shell” ignores that it took over nearly all OS-level functionality from DOS in typical operation. Windows 95, all things considered, was an amazing piece of software engineering.
I mean, he’s not quite as bad as that “Mesmeric” twit that dropped into another thread blaming Bill Gates for everything from child pornography to global warming, but he’s well on his way.
But from what I understand is the NT kernel is based on the VAX VMS kernel, which was another companies work bought out by MS.
Your understanding is wrong.
Microsoft *hired* a group of engineers after DEC canned the project they were working on (next generation VMS). These were the people who designed VMS. They used their experience and knowledge to design NT, resulting in – unsurprisingly – a great deal of design similarity between VMS and NT.
It was a solid OS but because of MS’s influence what was a good OS was essentially degraded.
It *is* a solid OS. Certainly a lot of the legacy support that _had_ to be included to create a usable product has – and continues – to generate compromises, but that’s a fact of life with any complex engineering project. I’m not sure what la-la land this person lives in where things like legacy support, development costs and product saleability aren’t important, but it’s certainly not anywhere that’s actually making stuff people use.
NT, properly configured, administered and running on quality hardware, is solid and reliable.
They took what was a good underlying structure and reduced it to a security nightmare, although better than the DOS based 9x series of OSes, by adding full backward compatability, and integrating non critical applications such as IE into a hybrid kernel.
Most of the “security nightmares” in NT stem from user error or system misconfiguration, and a couple of poorly chosen default configuration options (like making users Administrators by default). *Very* few of them are design problems. Oh, and IE is in no way, shape or form “integrated” into NT’s kernel.
My point is that they bought someone elses work, if only the minds behind it as opposed to the actual source, and ruined it through poor decisions in terms of implementation. This is something MS is notorious for and that was my point.
This standard is ridiculous. By your measure, no company who hires employees that haven’t been raised from birth by that company is capable of producing anything, only buying it, because they’ve “bought” the minds behind it.
I hope that you took the time to read the link that I posted because it showcases a series of poor decisions in respect to security and stability and unethical business practices on MS’s part.
Sorry, I lost interested after the first few pages. His lack of objective judgement, context, and persistent anti-Microsoft bile put me off.
I was just waiting for a line like “Microsoft ruined my marriage”. It wouldn’t be out of place.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time checking to make sure the information in the article I linked to was valid and for the most part I believe that it is based on fact.
Certainly at some level it is factual, but its presentation is such as making those facts as negative as possible. For example:
“[NT] was kludged up to run applications written for OS/2 1.0 (which it didn’t do very well) […]”
In fact NT ran OS/2 CLI apps quite well and the way it did so was not a “kludge” but an excellent example of software engineering (that same principle behind “OS personalities” that OSes based around Mach – like OS X – use).
Here’s another one:
“It even contained the entire Windows 3 kernel and the bulk of its accompanying code (and Windows XP still does) in the original 16-bit executables. Decades-old DOS code was added as well.”
Making it sound like the NT kernel itself is full of Win16 and DOS code, or running it all the time when in fact that code is separated out into a dedicated, discrete subsystem and only loaded when required.
Or this:
“[…] NT was designed as a single-user desktop operating system.”
NT was designed to be a multiuser OS from the start. It’s primary competitor was going to be *Netware*. Hardly something you’d create a single-user, desktop OS for, no ?
The whole thing is chock full of this semi-accurate bullshit. It’s got just enough “fact” in it such that a quick background check will agree on the basics (eg: that NT ran OS/2 1.0 applications), but then it’s dressed up in so much of the author’s vitriol and bias that the information becomes distorted.
So once again NT was not created by MS.
It was created by Microsoft employees, on Microsoft time, paid with Microsoft money. If that doesn’t qualify as “created by MS” then I propose to you you’ll have a hard time finding _any_ software product that was “created” by the company selling it.
As an IT proffesional I feel that a lot of actions throughout MS’s history have slowed the advancement of technology and that offends me.
Well, as an “IT professional” I think they’ve made stuff all difference and if it wasn’t them being a bunch of arseholes it would have been someone else.
Some examples of how you think they’ve “slowed the advancement of technology” would be interesting.
I am not a zealot but I believe that that true technology companies should focus on innovation to make money not making money using any means possible.
Then I suggest you concentrate on Universities, because you’re not going to find many corporations – particularly these days – like that.
Oh, and if you’re quoting pages like that as “serious” sources, then you’re pretty bloody close to being a “zealot” – because the author of that page certainly is.
If I’m wrong so be it. But feel free to bring my attention to any technology that MS truly innovated as opposed to marketed.
Without knowing your measure of “innovation”, that’s impossible.
And with all due respect when some one posts a link as well it would be appreciated if you took the time to read the entirity of the article linked to before commenting.
I read the first couple of pages. I’ve seen the page before and may even have slogged through the whole thing it in the past. I didn’t bother with the rest this time for the same reason I don’t bother reading most articles that are trying to dress up editorialism as “plain, verifiable facts”.
Y’all here are saying MS “bought” NT, or at least bought the people who wrote it.
Now, Apple bought NeXT and used an existing kernel. Linux distributors barely write any piece of code. Yet, MS wrote NT from the bpttom up, much like Be made BeOS and Robert Szeleney is making SkyOS.
All I’m trying to say is, is that MS has made a lot of stuff by themselves– and other than that, buying other companies is NORMAL in the company world. And competition is normal, and so are dirty buisiness tactics. It’s just that MS is in the spotlight due to their size and importance, so all their actions are looked at through a very big magnifying glass.
>You shouldn’t rely on anything from that site.
No instead we should rely on you words, where did your opinon came from?
>Well, as an “IT professional” I think they’ve made stuff
>all difference and if it wasn’t them being a bunch of
>arseholes it would have been someone else.
And that is good you may think whatever you want but that not guarantees it the reality.
>It *is* a solid OS.
Mmm…i wonder why we had to reboot our NT servers in the past at least twice a month, must be our fault.
NT *is* not a solid OS.
>It was created by Microsoft employees,
No it was not created by maybe the code was typed in by MS employees but the kernel itself, and all tech behind it, was not created MS employees
>finding _any_ software product that was “created” by the
>company selling it.
The is also software wich can download for free and is not made by MS or any other company and damn is stable, its secure, its virus/trojan free, its fast and fun to use. GO out more Dr.Smity it will do you good.
>Some examples of how you think they’ve “slowed the
>advancement of technology” would be interesting.
1 You did not ask me this but i am willing to answer this.
When Linux came into the picture esp. on the servermarket MS was trying to demoize it by calling open-source a cancer etc. I find that a way of making people affraid and to prevent them from switching to any other tech.
2 MS tries everyting to make sure their other companies or technologies cannot connect or use their tech. A good example is Samba. IF you want to read more i suggest you search for those articles on google because the link i give you weill be prob. not good enough for you.
3 Their monopoly slowes down their own innovation even, good exapmles are Internet Explorer and Outlook, if thaey had no monopoly or would listen more to the market IE would have been completly rewritten 3 years ago.
i could go on and on but i hope you get the point…
>Then I suggest you concentrate on Universities, because
>you’re not going to find many corporations – particularly
>these days – like that.
True. Todays socciety depends and is about money, the new GOD. I wonder how far people will go for GOD?
>I didn’t bother with the rest this time for the same reason
> I don’t bother reading most articles that are trying to
>dress up editorialism as “plain, verifiable facts”.
That might be your problem if you tend not read an article to the end because you think this or that, you might miss the point or valueable information from that same article.
How can you judge an article by this way?
>Linux distributors barely write any piece of code.
How wrong can one be…….
>MS wrote NT from the bpttom up
Even more wrong…………
What is it with you always trying to get the most wrong things? addiction?
>Y’all here are saying MS “bought” NT, or at least bought the
>people who wrote it.
>Now, Apple bought NeXT and used an existing kernel. Linux
>distributors barely write any piece of code. Yet, MS wrote NT
>from the bpttom up, much like Be made BeOS and Robert
>Szeleney is making SkyOS.
It is funny i often saw you complaining about the fact that Linux gets often refers too even if the articles are not about it but you seem to be the one doing it the most yourself. You bring it up all the time….
No instead we should rely on you words, where did your opinon came from?
No, you should go out and obtain information from multiple, objective sources and make your own decisions. I’d advise trying to find a few books, as well as on-line resources.
Having actually have “been around” when all this stuff was going on was helpful, but if you read enough different sources you should be enough out of them to form a reasonably balanced opinion.
Your (only, thus far) source isn’t even *close* to being objective.
And that is good you may think whatever you want but that not guarantees it the reality.
The reality is technology has advanced extremely quickly. Your “what if” thinking isn’t reality.
Mmm…i wonder why we had to reboot our NT servers in the past at least twice a month, must be our fault.
Quite possible.
NT *is* not a solid OS.
It’s at least as solid as the alternatives.
No it was not created by maybe the code was typed in by MS employees but the kernel itself, and all tech behind it, was not created MS employees
So all those employees at Apple, Sun, IBM, etc – did they just “type it in” as well ? Who _did_ manage to create something ?
The is also software wich can download for free and is not made by MS or any other company and damn is stable, its secure, its virus/trojan free, its fast and fun to use. GO out more Dr.Smity it will do you good.
I’m already well versed in the alternatives. I’ve had more than one job without a single Windows box to be seen.
When Linux came into the picture esp. on the servermarket MS was trying to demoize it by calling open-source a cancer etc.
But the website you’ve quoted doing exactly the same thing is A-OK, I’m guessing ?
Incidentally, Microsoft’s attacks weren’t on Open Source, they were on the GPL, and the points raised were – and remain – major concerns for software developers.
Not to mention, I though you were concerned about *technical advancement*, not development philosophies ?
I find that a way of making people affraid and to prevent them from switching to any other tech.
You make it sound like no-one else does the same thing. I refer you to the webpage you quoted earlier for a counterpoint.
MS tries everyting to make sure their other companies or technologies cannot connect or use their tech. A good example is Samba. IF you want to read more i suggest you search for those articles on google because the link i give you weill be prob. not good enough for you.
I though your complaints were about them suffocating *new* technology, not reimplementations of existing technology ?
Their monopoly slowes down their own innovation even, good exapmles are Internet Explorer and Outlook, if thaey had no monopoly or would listen more to the market IE would have been completly rewritten 3 years ago.
IE hardly needs rewriting. It’s certainly lagging behind a bit in features (like tabs), but what usually happens when Microsoft try to make their bundled software more featureful is a bunch of people running around yelling things like “monopoly” and “anti-trust”.
Outlook is pretty much best of breed (Evolution is a reasonable competitor, but suffers from the lack of an Exchange-equivalent backend).
You’ve not raised even decent argument to support your assertion, let alone examples.
I’ll ask again – can you offer any examples of how you think Microsoft has “slowed the advancement of technology”.
i could go on and on but i hope you get the point…
You probably could go on and on. I doubt you’d make a point though.
True. Todays socciety depends and is about money, the new GOD. I wonder how far people will go for GOD?
If history is any indicator, quite a long way.
That might be your problem if you tend not read an article to the end because you think this or that, you might miss the point or valueable information from that same article.
I sincerely doubt there’s any “valuable information” I’m going to miss on that web page. Afer all, even if Microsoft had come up with anything really innovative, that guy wouldn’t mention it, or would only mention it in a negative way.
How can you judge an article by this way?
By finding enough bias and bullshit in the first couple of pages to know the rest of it will be just as bad.
>MS wrote NT from the bpttom up
Even more wrong…………
Can you point me to a source that says otherwise? NT was written by Microsoft employees, whether you like it or not. And the NT kernel is considererd a darn good and stable piece of software by people who know what they’re talking about.
Oh, and by the way, Outlook 2003 is indeed one of the best email clients available today. I think you are referring to Outlook Express. In case you don’t know, there’s a world of difference between Outlook and Outlook Express.
Just remain the dang thing Emacs.
While the co-ownership agreement will not prevent Microsoft from changing the Giant product to suit its own needs, Sunbelt’s exclusive rights to create and distribute SDKs for the Giant AntiSpyware engine could require Microsoft to seek permission from Sunbelt before allowing third-party companies access to Giant’s data.
Bad aquisition.
So the more spyware and virusses Windows will get the more MS will
earn? Why can the not offer this tool? It should be just as integrated as
their browser and email programs for wich they also do not ask any money. This looks more like “How can we make more money on are own problematic OS”. Thanks Microsoft.
My Dual G5 is coming in the first week of januari. Lucky me.
>Oh, and by the way, Outlook 2003 is indeed one of the best email
>clients available today.
thom:
One of the best for you it must be but for me the best is Thunderbird or Evolution it all depends on you needs and what you refer to as good or best.
drsmity:
>By finding enough bias and bullshit in the first couple of pages to
>know the rest of it will be just as bad.
Oh so that is way i stop reading your comments after two words..makes sense now.
One of the best for you it must be but for me the best is Thunderbird or Evolution it all depends on you needs and what you refer to as good or best.
Didn’t I say “ONE of the best”? Oh, and no, I don’t use it. I use OSX and use Mail.app.
IE hardly needs rewriting. It’s certainly lagging behind a bit in features (like tabs), but what usually happens when Microsoft try to make their bundled software more featureful is a bunch of people running around yelling things like “monopoly” and “anti-trust”.
With their endless anouncements MS didn’t benefit their image.Who doesn’t get tired of all those postponed promises that aren’t being kept.They should just develop and in the meantime stop vomiting empty promises.
By your measure, no company who hires employees that haven’t been raised from birth by that company is capable of producing anything, only buying it, because they’ve “bought” the minds behind it.
Microsoft is giving the appearance that they aren’t capable of producing from within. They have 50% of the money in the world, supposedly a mountain of programming talent, pulled resources from other projects in order to concentrate on SP2, then throw their hands in the air and buy someone elses AV and anti-spyware products.
It’s not an effort that will go on Microsoft’s highlight reel.
“Who doesn’t get tired of all those postponed promises that aren’t being kept.They should just develop and in the meantime stop vomiting empty promises.”
I’ll bet Peter’s not talking about hardware support or a good GUI or a good configuration tool or a widely acceppted office application and browser or a kernel that can be extensibly reconfigured without recompiling it from source or an integrated OS that doesn’t demand you go to a dozen different web ‘help documents’ to configure it.
What is he talking about then?
If MS had “50% of the money in the world”, Billy G might be buying jet fighters and aircraft carriers instead of pissy little spyware removal companies.
Grow up. Give up the conspiracy theories. As well as doing yourself good in a personal sense, you’ll give yourself more chance of being employed as something other than RMS’s house cleaner.
I think he meant that the Longhorn project allways has been right on shedule.
Jack of all trades, master of none.
If MS had “50% of the money in the world”, Billy G might be buying jet fighters and aircraft carriers instead of pissy little spyware removal companies.
Grow up. Give up the conspiracy theories.
What conspiracy theory? The only point I am making is that even with enormous resources and all the time Microsoft gave SP2, they failed and turned to the outside for help.
I thought .au was Australia. They speak English there, right?
M$ offering a spyware reomver is almost as funny as AOL’s new advertising speil to offer antivirus service.
Windows itself aside from being prone to spyware *IS* spyware in and of itelf, and DRM is only going to add to that hilarity.
Just like AOL saying their users are protected against virii when their own AOL software has hosed it’s fair share of computers when installed. To say nothing of the average (lack of) intelligence of the typical AOl user, spreading worms and virii and being none-the-wiser to it.
Perhaps M$ is trying to corner the market again and put superior competitors out of business. LavaSoft’s AdAware is a good (and free) spyware removal tool. I can see Microsoft wanting to put spyware companies out of business just because M$ didn;t think of the idea first, another netscape all over again.
“Windows 95, all things considered, was an amazing piece of software engineering.”
Yeah, in much the same way as that gigantic one-wheeled motorcycle that gets on TV every now and again. It’s amazing that it works at all, but if you were going to recreate The Motorcycle Diaries, you’d take a Harley.
Well, as of February this year, Microsoft had a $53bn cash pile. He could buy 100 Eurofighters for that, and still have $3bn for ice cream…
Imagine how many problems that SP2 brings, can you still believe in MS’s “fixes” or “patches”? Most spyware are “designed” for MS IE, I wonder MS can actually remove those, perhaps this spyware removal software will bring more trouble, watch out when you try it out
Instead they hired David Cutler, who had been involved with the development of VAX VMS at Digital. […] Cutler took some 20 former Digital employees with him, and he and his team began the development of NT. The project eventually involved hundreds of other coders and testers, but Cutler and his core team of VMS engineers provided most of the know-how that went into NT’s kernel code.”
At the time Cutler and his ‘team’ wrote NT they were and he still is a MS engineer. Thats a MS employee(s).
am not sure if you understood anything i tried to say but that prob. because of my bad enligsh sorry about that.
No problem dude. You write pretty clearly.
There are diffrences and there are companies that ALSO listen to their customers. Apple has a far better product and tech. than MS on every level. I really like their attitude more than MS.
Apple isn’t bad. If you don’t mind a company more hellbent on vendor lockin than MS they can be quite nice.
I deal with their so called best tech. every day and i am not impressed in any way.
Farther down you claim you don’t even use their technology. Interesting.
Google? when did that came up? i did you ment their desktop search tech. ?
NO I was claiming that if you use the technology daily you don’t need to research via google to find out what its capable of. Actually thats a bit of a misconception on my part because the software is so deep with functionality that sometimes you do need it.
No again, when will you finally start reading instead of posting?,
Its notbecause they buy tech. its how they try to dominate and obstruct
the market.
Yeah it kills me to watch a strong company kick some major ass. I’d much rather a bunch of pussy ass softies out there playing ‘fair’ and putting jobs in jeopardy.
I do not need MS for anything i do so best solution is not to use their products.
If you aren’t even using the stuff why bother posting about it ?