Comments

• Yuhong Bao

  2010-05-21 20:51:15

  "The article is not from early NT days. It’s just several years old. " Which only makes the claim that "Windows has only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model" even less true. NT has existed for more than a decade by then.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-05-21 21:41:55

  That's just a distraction really. It's not the 'meat' of the article.

• your_friend

  2010-05-20 17:57:51

  Vista 7 is pretty? It's one of the ugliest and least efficient interfaces inflicted on users. Virtual desktops are still rudimentary and the flip view is useless for anything but advertising to the ignorant. Microsoft's ribbon interface is a confusing change for prior users that wastes screen space in the more limited direction of most LCDs, forcing people to bow their heads and scroll a lot. The looks themselves are a step backwards from previous less cluttered versions of Windows. The proportions are even worse, being more complicated and less coherent than others that were forced by technical limitations. The overall result is something that is more cluttered and bewildering than the electronic games section of a casino but twice as crass.

• Yuhong Bao

  2010-05-21 01:08:01

  "Vista 7 — like its predecessors — is not secure. Also see:" I already rebut some of them, particularly bad is the "Vista 7 Security "Cannot be Fixed. It’s a Design Problem."" one (see the IRC logs).

• your_friend

  2010-05-21 04:29:02

  A dozen cases of complete failure can be rebutted? After 25 years of the worst kinds of software insecurity you still think Windows can be used for anything but non networked games or toys? What amazing faith you have.

• Yuhong Bao

  2010-05-21 20:28:36

  I was rebutting the evidence used. See old IRC logs.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-05-21 08:41:39

  Microsoft will need to rebuild Windows. It still lacks security features that are found in UNIX/Linux.
  
  Marketing hype campaigns about "security" and UAC restrictions are not enough.

• Yuhong Bao

  2010-05-21 20:28:08

  It still lacks security features that are found in UNIX/Linux. What features? UAC is a pretty close clone of sudo, for example.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-05-21 20:30:02

  Repositories for starters. I can't give you a complete list right now. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/

• Yuhong Bao

  2010-05-21 20:35:57

  Yea, I have read this. Let me try to rebut some of them. The first one "Windows has only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model" is just plainly not true. NT has existed since 1993, even before Windows 95! On RPC, I know (I have seen Blaster, for example), but that is not easy to change even if Windows is rewritten since it is a network protocol, for God's sake. And yes MS has been trying to make Windows more modular, see Windows Server 2008, for example, which was released after the article.

• Yuhong Bao

  2010-05-21 20:37:42

  Now 95 indeed ended up more popular than NT, which led to for example a lot of Win32 applications written without the NT security model in mind.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-05-21 20:45:12

  Yea, I have read this. Let me try to rebut some of them. The first one “Windows has only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model” is just plainly not true. NT has existed since 1993, even before Windows 95! On RPC, I know (I have seen Blaster, for example), but that is not easy to change even if Windows is rewritten since it is a network protocol, for God’s sake. And yes MS has been trying to make Windows more modular, see Windows Server 2008, for example, which was released after the article.

  
  
  Please provide me with proof that it's more modular. Microsoft patented a modular O/S, but it does not mean this was properly implemented (or that Microsoft invented it).
  
  

  Now 95 indeed ended up more popular than NT, which led to for example a lot of Win32 applications written without the NT security model in mind.

  
  
  The article is not from early NT days. It's just several years old. I think you are nitpicking.

• Yuhong Bao

  2010-05-21 20:48:56

  Please provide me with proof that it’s more modular. Microsoft patented a modular O/S, but it does not mean this was properly implemented (or that Microsoft invented it). Windows Server 2008, with it's Server Core support, should be proof that MS is at least trying to make it more modular.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-05-21 21:41:08

  Please provide me with proof that it’s more modular. Microsoft patented a modular O/S, but it does not mean this was properly implemented (or that Microsoft invented it).

  Windows Server 2008, with it’s Server Core support, should be proof that MS is at least trying to make it more modular.

  
  
  Trying. It's still not there. For a truly modular architecture see how Linux/GNU/X can be decoupled.