Why, Exactly, Does Everyone "Hate" Vista?

[KrossX]

Well, most of the security reasons Microsoft has/had were basicly cuz most of the people run as administrator and it was easy for a 3rd party software to abuse this fact, thus taking control of your computer. Even with the UAC now, tis almost the same cuz a lot of people disable it for its anoyance.

In Vista x64 there is some improvement, since the program changes de memory adress ramdomly at startup making lot of malware useless. Even so, you still have the option to install a third party anti-everything software to protect you. But, will this be enough versus a Hacker? No. (Not even UNIX might be secure versus a hacker)

And the main problem of all, the user. Some people claim to have MS OS and never an issue, nor virus, nor spyware. First, you must take care in consideration where do you roam. If you spend a lot of time in *crackers websites, +18 websites, unknown places... expect some malware in the road.

This can go with the anti-malware software as well. If you only see some news, wander trough secure places... you might say that your anti-everything software is perfect!. But, If I had an magical anti-everything stone over my pc and never had an issue... this stone would be perfect too, isn't it?

Anyway, my thoughts on the main topic. Vista needed more work (got some anoying bugs... specially with the KB938979 update), I had to get XP64 back (since I don't have issues with the drivers, tis perfect for now). I'll try it again once SP1 is out. Do I hate it? almost, Do I hate MS? Yes! they have more moneny than me! (pure envy :D)

 

[larryk]

And why is it that they have to foist new operating systems on the public every 4 or 5 years?

I agree with dz in small part that it has to do with trying to stay ahead of malicious software, but I would think it has more to do with creating revenue. Microsoft has to pay its employees and keep Bill at or near the top of the world's richest list. And I don't have a problem with that at all, but it explains why Vista is primarily bells and whistles improvements over XP, which is fine by me as well. America's and most other industrialized economies are consumption-driven and Microsoft plays in that market. Just like there is another Playstation every year, another video card, etc. If you aren't tabling something new and improved, your bottom line suffers.

I believe there will always be a market for malicious software defense (if the industry isn't creating or encouraging the market itself). The other OSes would suffer as Windows does if they had the market share to be worth the trouble. As you said, an overwhelming majority of desktop machines run Windows. It's just not worth the time to write a virus to attack 5% of the market.

Keep in mind as well that an operating system is a very complex piece of software, especially one that supports - or tries to anyway - every matter of different hardware and software. Give the developers a little credit and cut them some slack at the same time. It's not an easy thing.

 

[sooner1938]

I would think it has more to do with creating revenue. Microsoft has to keep Bill at or near the top of the world's richest list.

Bingo - this is what it's all about. What about our bottom line?

With the technological geniuses they have in Redmond, you'd think they could incorporate those defenses against malware right into their operating system.

 

[larryk]

With the technological geniuses they have in Redmond, you'd think they could incorporate those defenses against malware right into their operating system.

No doubt they could, but remember, every time Microsoft incorporates something into their OS, they are immediately inundated with anti-trust lawsuits resulting in millions of dollars in legal costs. EVERYBODY wants their piece of the pie, and going after Microsoft has become a first resort.

 

[Dzomlija]

With the technological geniuses they have in Redmond, you'd think they could incorporate those defenses against malware right into their operating system.

What good is that incorporation if most everyone complains about it and turns it off? Case in point: Most people complained about the lack of protection built-in to the OS, so Microsoft gave us UAC. What happens? If the posts on this NG is anything to go by, most people want to turn it off!

Personally, I believe that UAC is a good thing, but still lacks the teeth required to be a real fight against malware. An option to "always continue" for an individual task that requires elevation (such as opening RegEdit or adjusting Indexing settings) would be nice too.

 

[sooner1938]

they are immediately inundated with anti-trust lawsuits resulting in millions of dollars in legal costs.

If anyone in the US of A should be hit with anti-trust lawsuits, it should be Walmart. They have absolutely destroyed competition in a whole host of merchandise fields. I do considerable shopping in Walmart myself but I sure don't like their predatory business practices.