"With [the Win95] release, Apple was tested - and they failed miserably. Not only did I warn Apple to take 95 more seriously, I also accurately forecast the massive decline that would happen to them if they didn't do just that. The MS platform has changed dramatically and it is much greater than just the operating system these days. Apple, on the other hand, hasn't advanced nearly as much but they are predominantly consumer-based today and less vulnerable to this comparative weakness as a result. Just like the last time, they will largely leverage hardware this time, and, as before, they will be up against companies with resources that eclipse their own."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:It doesn't matter if you are talking the Windows "New Technology" (NT) stream or the older Windows products based on DOS - for backwards compatibility reasons they both lack a true security structure.
FAT16 and FAT32 filesystems do not provide for files to be tagged with "permissions". For example - files do not have an "execute" bit - which means that the only way Windows knows if a file is executable or not is via its filename extension. This is so easy to get by it isn't funny.
It is still possible to install XP on a FAT32 filesystem - which means that the core of XP by design will still run without files being properly identiified by owner or by executable/not executable status. Windows XP can guess if a file is a valid part of the system or not - but it is exceptionally easy to fool - by design.
Windows design has inherent "lack of security" built right in. This derives from backwards compatibility with the single-user DOS-based versions of Windows and the desire that the NT-based versions should be able to run (binary) executables designed for the earlier DOS-based versions.
Windows security is borked - by design. Irredeemably broken from the outset.
If Windows Vista attempts to retain even the slightest bit of binary backwards compatibility, then it too will be broken from the outset.
If Windows Vista does not retain backwards compatibility for binary executables, than any Windows user wishing to upgrade to Vista will have to purchase again each and every proprietary application on their systems.
Member since:2005-08-27
Member since:"Windows security is borked - by design. Irredeemably broken from the outset."
I think you don't know ANYTHING about the Windows design. You haven't seen the source code. Even if you saw it you wouldn't be able to understand it - mainly because it's so huge.
This "unsecure by design" phrase is just a hype. The only thing you learnt is FUD.
Member since:
@ Anonymous (IP: 67.170.178.---)
Windows is not based on DOS as you claim.
Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME is based on DOS. However, Windows on NT is a different issue and has been since the first NT-release (versioned NT 3.1 since Windows 3.1 (for DOS) was the most recent DOS-based release).
NT and DOS is two different OS'es. And NT has quite a few good ideas incorporated (and some not-so-good ideas. And some good ideas are poorly implemented).
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk