Microsoft is dead!

Oh, pull-ease... you cannot honestly believe that any MAC OS worries Microsoft. "Catching up"? My god... Apple has been trying to do that since DOS 4 or earlier... and as for "MS going nowhere", excuse me for laughing hysterically...

Have you looked at your server logs lately? or anyone else's?

For operating systems, Windows is like 97%. For browsers, about 90-95% depending on the site.

MAC is about 1%, slightly behind Linux. Neither of them is a serious threat to Windows. MAC users know that. Linux users know that. We all know that.

 

Yeah Minstrel and no one ever thought the Boston Red Sox would ever pass the New York Yankees and become the "World Champions".

Microsoft happens to be the "has been NY Yanks".

UK Government is going to dump M$

http://uk.builder.com/manage/business/0,39026582,39221857,00.htm

"Microsoft is Dead" Minstrel, just face it.....

 

Here is an other take on the subject

From: http://www.cxotoday.com/cxo/jsp/ind...ection_code=1&file=template1.jsp&storyid=1668

 

Hmm if Microsoft were dead they would be out of business. I don't think that will ever happen. Microsoft is years and light years away from being dead.

 

Elvis was the greatest and he is dead, have any seen him around of late

 

Huh? You really need to do a course in comprehensive reading. I said 'MS is going nowhere' - if I need to spell that out, that means 'MS is not leaving the top spot'.. geeeeezzzzzz..

Anyway, I check my server stats very regularly and in MY stats for October IE (all versions) has only 73% and 83.95% for Windows (all versions). I have a strange 11% 'Unknown' though, so that may be partially SP2 or something similar. In that case, it's more like 93-95%. My stats are over a very general audience and I think a large enough sample to be reliable (353,000 visits / 1.4 million page views).

And as far as copying OSs goes, perhaps they aren't concerned about OSX, but they do often seem to be 'inpired' by them. They're certainly trailing behind now in terms of hardware effects, user interface and security. I use both XP and OSX in adjoining rooms and there is no doubt in my mind which room is the one that's in the 21st century Goodness, every time I try to do a 'find' on the PC, I have to go make a cup of tea. Macs have had simple little Sherlock since goodness only knows when and it takes a matter of seconds to search an entire hard drive. I bet Longhorn will finally have something to compete, just AFTER Mac has launched their new Spotlight, which will be another few light years ahead.

And read this article to brush up on your history:
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2004/20040708.shtml

 

Thanks for clarifying... my apologies... I read that too quickly obviously.

Now see this:

Mac and Linux Not Immune to Viruses

 

Maybe they will try Minstrel, but no one is an easy mark like M$ with their Active X API, their registry, IE and flawed patches (SP2).

The ship is still sinking Minstel and the Google's are coming in addition to the Linux's and the Open Source's and the Grid Computing Data Center ASP's (network wireless computing via broadband).

 

Apology accepted and thx for the link. I have actually been at pains to reply that Macs aren't immune..

This doesn't mean they aren't 'more secure' than Windows boxes..

Take an example that the writer used in the article: the dodgy attachment.

On a PC, a user would only have to click on it to wreak havoc (in an out-of-the box situation)

On a Mac, a user would have to first click on it and THEN give up his admin password for it to wreak any real havoc.

I'm sure any thread would lose a LOT of impact right there, including the one mentioend in the article.

This doesn't mean OSX is invulnerable, just that it is less vulnerable.

And I totally agree that "alternative platforms can look forward to a future of increasing participation in the explosion of development that heretofore had been limited to Windows"

BUT those hackers won't have it as easy as in the Windows world..

And security aside, I find OSX just a nicer operating system to work with in general.

 

A sure sign the a company is about fail is false or deceptive advertising.
The following ads by google where found on a Linux Lug

Both linked to www.microsoft.com/canada/getthefacts/default.mspx

It looks like M$ knows how good Linux is getting, and will pull no punches including false or deceptive advertising.

 

1. Those Microsoft articles have been around for a while (look at the dates on those articles... back to March 2004 or earlier) -- they are simply about Microsoft stating their opinion (shared by others, by the way, if you read any of the "reverse migration" news articles) that open source is not necessarily cheaper in the long run than MS

2. It's not false or deceptive advertising at all, certainly not nearly as deceptive as some of the claims for open source

3. re: "It looks like MS knows how good Linux is getting" -- you're probably right -- Microsoft has probably seen that Linux now has, what? 1% of the market now? No doubt they are scared silly...

4. The "S" key is right there between the "A" and "D" keys on your keyboard -- is yours stuck or something?

 

Now, Now Minstrel, you remember the story about the young boy that held his finger in the dike to try to keep the town dry have you not?

Please Minstrel, take you finger out of the hole in the dam and run like hell because it is going to break.

You know that I am fond of you and do not want to see you go down with the ShipWreck we call Windows.

 

If you have been tricked into visiting a page, would you believe every thing on that same page to be 100% truthfull or would you believe the contents just as deceptive as the link that got you there ?

 

Just what were you expecting when you clicked on those links, mushroom? If you really were "tricked", I think you have a lot more to worry about than "deceptive advertising".

 

Well here is one thing I don't have to worry about.

From: http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/holes/story/0,10801,97478,00.html

 

It is our 1 a day security bulletin, thank you Mushroom.

Microsoft Windows OS is built upon a flawed foundation from the start, you can only patch leaks so many times before the whole thing blows up.

Many have said that Microsoft would have to start all over in designing a new OS, because Windows itself would have to be re-written to be secure in any way. Patching a flawed OS forever is not the solution, they need to write a new OS from scratch and quit trying to hide the source code that no one really wants anyway.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time debating this point with you, mushroom -- it's obvious to me by now that you are either intentionally obtuse or just simply obtuse. ALL operating systems have flaws, even your precious SuSe. If you choose to close your eyes and believe otherwise, be my guest.

Anthony, on the other hand, isn't obtuse -- he just likes to debate.

Results 1 - 10 of about 783,000 for security flaws linux.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=security+flaws+linux

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=security+flaws+linux+suse

Results 1 - 10 of about 828,000 for linux security flaw

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ff&c2coff=1&q=linux+security+flaw&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,820,000 for linux security issue

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=linux+security+issue

 

Yes Minstrel, but even though every OS has bugs, flaws or defects, Windows has more ways for hackers to attack than any other platform.

This is all Mushroom (who is your friend) is pointing out.

Even the Firefox page mentions that it does not use the M$ Active X because of it's danger.

What about the registry, what about IE that has allowed drive by downloads?

There are major problems with SP2 also.

Why get mad at Mushroom Minstrel when he is simply stating his position on these forums?

Yes, it may seem like everyone is jumping on and picking on Microsoft now. But has Microsoft wiped out most of it's competition by being fair?

Now Ballmer wants to come out with a $100.00 PC, why? To keep his market share that he knows is at great risk, not just because of security flaws, but because the other OS's are in fact much better and more secure operating systems Minstrel.

 

Debatable. Even if true, so what? Use it or don't. Stop whining about it.

You are mistaken.

Is your "S" button stuck too, Anthony? Turn Active-X off if it worries you. It's easy enough to do...

Where did I say that Windows and IE did not have security concerns? Do you think Firefox or Linux have none? If so, you are indeed living with a false sense of security.

Because he is a one trick pony with the same erroneous message posted ad nauseum every where he goes.

<conspiracy theory stuff ignored>

 

However, the key difference here is that all of the distro's above have a fix usually before the flaw is exploited.. Fixes are quick and complete, and FREE! With MS the flaws exist, usually have some type of cost associated with the fix (not all), and take a long time to get. Generally with MS the exploits are around before the fix. Again, the same is not true in the NIX community.

The biggest problem overall are admins that are too dumb or lazy to patch their OS, whatever it be, before the exploit hits. I see this way more on the MS side.

So it is not a question of what is better, Chevy or Ford, nix or ms, it is more a question of how quickly a known exploit is patched before it compromises a given OS.