Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Nov 2012 15:17 UTC
Windows "As we pass the one month anniversary of the general availability of Windows 8, we are pleased to announce that to-date Microsoft has sold 40 million Windows 8 licenses. Tami Reller shared this news with industry and financial analysts, investors and media today at the Credit Suisse 2012 Annual Technology Conference. Windows 8 is outpacing Windows 7 in terms of upgrades." Not bad, but there are the usual asterisks, as Ars notes.
Thread beginning with comment 543557
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: But....
by TemporalBeing on Thu 29th Nov 2012 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: But...."
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

"

The sales numbers they were providing were proof enough.

Sales are based on licenses sold. Vista Pro included a license for XP, so did Win7. During the first few months when MS was claiming record sales, it was also shown that most were reverted to XP systems. So, sale of Vista/Win7 did not necessarily mean someone using Win7.


Doesn't really matter, Gym memberships work on this very principle. Also even if you half the numbers it is still pretty impressive the number of sales.
"

But we're not talking about Gym memberships.

We're talking about Microsoft boasting about its sales and its misleading practice in how those numbers are determined. Two very different things.

"Now add to it the fact that with WinVista and even more so with WinXP, most got a very limited version of Windows (sale #1), and would therefore need to upgrade the version (sale #2). While one can technically count these as separate sales of separate licenses (they are), it would in fact be double-dipping the sale for the same system. So unless you differentiate this in the numbers (which was not likely) then you have inflated numbers.


Again it is still a purchase, it is still money going into the kitty.
"

Yes, it is money in the kitty.

Questions is: How many would have only purchased one license for what gave them what they wanted first if they were able to? Or if they were informed properly? Or if the product level did what they wanted?

The point is that the change in how Windows licenses were structured from XP to Vista and how those licenses were counted and compared was entirely misleading.

Also interestingly, nobody criticises Adobe for this pricing model ... Would it be soo hard to consider that they are rewarding existing customers by lowering the price for the update?


Adobe doesn't do the same thing, and hasn't changed the pricing model and compared apples-to-oranges boasting about its sales.


"WinVista's biggest issue was driver support and that was primarily due to MS changing driver interfaces at the last moment - between RC2 and RTM. The other big issue was UAC - something MS had been warning developers about for a long time.


I fail to see how UAC is any different to OSX and Ubuntus "sudoing" to admin.

UAC was a good thing IMHO. I know it isn't perfect, but at least made people pay attention to the installer.
"

I agree, UAC is very much like the sudo functionalities in other OS's. The problem was not the introduction of it, but rather the lack of software being ready for it.

For MacOSX, there was a very clear line - the OS8/9 to OSX transition. Pre-OSX applications didn't have to concern themselves with a UAC feature, and OSX applications by had to by the very nature of the underlying OS that Apple adopted.

However, historically MS has been sloppy in APIs which require Admin/root privileges, and those which they've encouraged developers to use. As a result, many applications and APIs used functionality that was only suppose to be used by an administrator. When UAC was introduced, applications simply were not ready.

Now, it's not entirely MS's fault - MS had been telling application developers that the change was coming for several years.

So the issue with Vista was not so UAC itself, but how often the UAC interface came up due. Most of this was fixed by Win7, but it was considered a black mark for Vista - rightly or wrongly.

"Win8's biggest issue is the UI. I'm sure its just as stable as and better performing than Win7 - namely due to the Windws Dev process put in place since the start of Vista.


The Metro/Modern UI is a matter of debate, but it doesn't mean that Windows 8 is insecure OS or that it isn't functional in Desktop mode (tbh I really haven't missed the start menu).

However, Windows still remains a major security whole, and one that can only be plugged properly in a virtual environment. it's just the design of the system and its APIs. It's yet to be seen whether the WinRT API will help resolve the security issues of Win32 - I haven't looked at it very closely yet.


Actually Windows has been pretty damn secure since VISTA, most of the exploits require a user actually running code as Admin ... no system not even OpenBSD/Linux etc can protect against that.
"

SELinux has the ability to. While it is not used much by normal desktop users, Linux has security capabilities that go far beyond what Windows has.

There aren't many holes when it comes to the actual OS itself. It is rely on the user being dumb. The only virus that has been successful was Stuxnet, which took security experts years to decipher its inner workings.


There are still many holes; many bugs that were reported back in Win3/95/4/XP/Vista/7 that are still there in Win8. Microsoft's policy is that they don't fix it unless it's being actively taken advantage of.

Now the changes in development method introduced during the development of Vista will certainly help. For example, Microsoft has had a very poor history of keeping fixes in places - it was a common occurrence that one patch would fix a bug and another would re-introduce it; and not uncommon for that to happen multiple times. With the refactoring that has been going on since the start of development for Vista that should be more under control - at least one would hope.

Unlike MacOSX which still ships on Mac with the firewall turned off.


Most OS's are secure by default. Thus a firewall is not necessary. On Unix systems (of which OS X is part of) what you can do is limited - you can only open a port below 1024 if you are root; and if you are not root, any damage is limited to the user the software is running as. It is the same on Linux.

And if you even quote the number of malware for Windows, it is because it is the most popular desktop OS, not because it is insecure ... Android has had similar problems (and Nokia smart phones early 2000s ... bluetooth viruses).


The malware for Windows is only in part due to its popularity. It is also (and more importantly) due to the design of the OS and the security issues that are prevalent within it. It is furthered by OEMs taking money to pre-install software that users may not otherwise want or buy.

And, Android does not really have an issue with Malware or Viruses. Yes, there are people that write some malicious stuff for Android; however, just like any other non-Windows OS the user has to specifically install it and grant it permission to do what it wants to do. Android itself has a far better security model than Windows ever had.

[p]The same security precautions on Windows can be said about any OS. [/q]

Windows - even Windows 8 - does not have the security precautions of the other OS's out there.

Windows was designed for a single user that, just like DOS, had full access and control of all the hardware. Security was an after thought for Windows.

Comparatively, all others OS's on the market - Linux, Mac OSX, VXworks, etc - were designed for multiple users from the start and as such security was designed in - even if only in basic form - from the start.

Before you start spouting off on how security is not an issue for any other OS because of MS's market size, learn a bit about the design differences between Windows and everyone else - they're very important when it comes to security.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Fri 30th Nov 2012 02:11 in reply to "RE[4]: But...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well that was a lot of rubbish.

Pretty much everything you said may have been true until about 2003, which is almost 10 years ago now.

Also Windows has their equivalents to pretty much every security feature you could list of Linux.

Sorry ... keeping the firewall off is still dumb.

Also NT has always been designed as a multi-user OS, it just the desktop versions of Windows only allow one person logged it at a time (well that isn't really true anymore either).

Edited 2012-11-30 02:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: But....
by TemporalBeing on Fri 30th Nov 2012 14:42 in reply to "RE[5]: But...."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Also Windows has their equivalents to pretty much every security feature you could list of Linux.


If that were true, then Windows would have an equivalent security level for government use. It does not.

Windows cannot receive the same security rating as Linux, which is in a category shared by only one other system - Trusted Solaris - and reached by the Red Hat RHEL distribution, if not SuSe as well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: But....
by zima on Tue 4th Dec 2012 13:14 in reply to "RE[4]: But...."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Wall of text doesn't make you right...

Most OS's are secure by default. Thus a firewall is not necessary. [...] if you are not root, any damage is limited to the user the software is running as. It is the same on Linux.

As it is on Windows.

Windows - even Windows 8 - does not have the security precautions of the other OS's out there.
Windows was designed for a single user that, just like DOS, had full access and control of all the hardware. Security was an after thought for Windows.
Comparatively, all others OS's on the market - Linux, Mac OSX, VXworks, etc - were designed for multiple users from the start and as such security was designed in - even if only in basic form - from the start.

Just brush aside how Android also has quite a bit of malware...

Generally, you also have to install malware yourself on Windows. You also seem to be mixing win9x with NT ...one would think you'd have a clue after two decades. And VxWorks is used mostly in limited embedded stuff.

BTW, judging from the initial announcements Linus Torvalds made, Linux was meant as a toy project for him - so, one could say, not strictly "designed for multi-user from the start".

Reply Parent Score: 2