Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Sep 2005 19:53 UTC
"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."
Thread beginning with comment 36388
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: You are all missing his point
by CPUGuy on Tue 27th Sep 2005 03:27
in reply to "RE[9]: You are all missing his point"
Member since:2005-07-06
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
>>The problem isn't with Windows itself, it's with developers coding for Admin only rather than taking advantage of the fact that Windows does support user levels.<<
Windows does support user levels but does not mandate them.
Windows Vista is designed to still run legacy applications via the Win32 ABI from Windows 95 days.
Windows 95 was a single user OS that was not networked. Windows 95 design therefore has absolutely zero concept of security. None. Nada. Zilch. Squat.
... and Windows Vista will still run legacy binary applications built for Windows 95.
Think about that for a minute.
Because Vista inherits the ability to still run binaries from circa Windows 95, it inherits exactly the same level of security. None. Nada. Zilch. Squat.
By design, Windows security is absolutely broken.
The only way to fix it is to completely abandon binary compatiibility with applications that ran on previous versions of Windows.
Since Windows users pay a good many $$$ to buy binary executable versions of their software, you can imagine how popular it would be if Windows Vista could not run them.
Those are the choices. Retain binary compatibility (back to Windows 95 win32 ABI), or have a secure OS.
You can't have both.