Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Oct 2011 23:00 UTC
Windows Ten years ago today, Microsoft launched what would become the world's most popular desktop operating system - for better or worse. Its interface colours were... Interesting (trying hard to avoid bias here, folks, bear with me now). Its early performance was... Not always entirely up to par. Its security track record was... Well, it sucked hard in that department (I tried). We're ten years down the line, and thanks to Vista, way too many people are still using this relic.
Thread beginning with comment 494382
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: A great OS
by lemur2 on Wed 26th Oct 2011 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A great OS"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"Au contraire, there are approximately two million new pieces of malware written every year, essentially all of it is targetted at Windows.
Most of which is delivered via very specific means, has very specific vectors for attack and most of which gets tripped up by simply not having write access to system files. Unless you're dealing with a lot of sensitive information, you don't even need the anti-* software. As a precaution, it's worth installing a couple twice a year, running a scan and then removing them (since most people still running XP probably don't have the most robust hardware), though. "

I'll say it AGAIN because it obviously didn't sink in: "Of all of the non-expert home users of Windows of my acquaintance, who effectively had the task of looking after their own Windows systems, none of them managed to use Windows for more than a year at a time before their systems were compromised. Some of them have asked me to fix their Windows systems, and others just take their system to a computer store every so often and fork out money to have it fixed."

To my mind, compared with my Linux systems, this is utterly abysmal. It may or may not be the fault of Windows that it is attacked so much, but regardless of where the fault is, the experience of non-expert self-supporting Windows users is lamentable. Despite having to pay appreciable ongoing costs for security software over-and-above the bare OS, their security is still compromised, they face a significant risk that their finances or identity might be stolen online, they have no privacy and are constantly spied upon, they are routinely bombarded by advertising, their systems work against them in terms of imposing DRM policies and the like, and they have to pay, and pay again, to maintain even this poor standard of service.

Edited 2011-10-26 05:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: A great OS
by Icaria on Wed 26th Oct 2011 05:08 in reply to "RE[5]: A great OS"
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

I'll say it AGAIN because it obviously didn't sink in
No, I got it; it's just irrelevant. Irrelevant to the person you originally replied to, irrelevant to the point I addressed in my last reply.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: A great OS
by lemur2 on Wed 26th Oct 2011 05:19 in reply to "RE[6]: A great OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I'll say it AGAIN because it obviously didn't sink in
No, I got it; it's just irrelevant. Irrelevant to the person you originally replied to, irrelevant to the point I addressed in my last reply. "

Of course it is relevant. You are trying to say Windows XP is secure enough. I'm telling you it simply isn't, for the purposes of ordinary non-expert users who are expected to maintain their own systems. The XPerience such users face is abysmal, even when they do correctly follow the well-meaning advice they are given. I see it happen all the time.

The popular view is even that "computers get slower after a while". This is what (Windows) users experience, even though it should not happen (software performance should not degrade with time).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111016154153AAHD8Rb

PS: It is clear from the above that ordinary non-expert users are not aware that when an anti-malware security extra program they have installed boasts a "98% detection rate", that also means a 2% failure-to-detect rate. A failure-to-detect in turn means that your system has malware even though your anti-malware security software says it doesn't.

Someone else was trying to say Windows was stable, as solid as a rock. I had to deal with a crash and a failure to recover properly less than a minute after I read this. I would have fallen about laughing if it wasn't so annoying to have suffered the crash.

Edited 2011-10-26 05:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1