Joe, you comments for these few entries recently centered around bunch of sales figures of Microsoft and Apple.

You are recycling all the sentences and wording on and on

It seems that you are really running out of topic.

It looks like you are the Sales Director of Microsoft who worries about the sales results

I was not expecting a different interpretation of these results from "Microsoft Bash".
Take a look here for a different interpretation of these un-equivocal results beating even the most optimistic expectations.

Vista Pays Off
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070427_478095.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_top+stories

I have been vindicated at last !
Joe says "Microsoft suffered untoward income declines during its second fiscal quarter as the company held back revenue related to upgrade guarantees for Office 2007 and Windows Vista."

And Business week says the opposite, now will someone believe me that this site is "Microsoft Bash" !

Neil,

I've been watching your posts for months now....I couldn't agree with you more. There's a definite bias with the writing on this site.

I actually read Joe's articles and immediately scroll down to "see what Neil has to say." :)

You guys actually make a pretty entertaining team!

Number nitpicking aside, Vista is clearly a success. Get over it, Joe. This morning, Microsoft stock is up almost 5%.

Joe Wilcox,

The only thing missing in this article is a conclusion to where the money really came from? I suggest the increase in profit for MS came from channel stuffing, or in other words, OEM's holding a bunch of Vista licenses. Now this may not be the case, and we won't know for a few quarters yet.

Also, I hope you will continue to voice your opinion and draw a few conclusions as well as just stating the facts. Perhaps the MS Fanboys/shills are getting to you were all their mindless bashing. I hope not, as your articles seem to show a marked degree of thinking, and provide depth not found at other websites.

TomT,

Even Windows ME and MSDOS 4 was a money maker. So why would Vista be any different? The real point would not be profitability, but would Vista cause MS to lose market share to non-MS operating systems on the desktop? With a 90 to 95% lock on the desktop market, there is no place to go but down for MS. But I would not expect MS to lose much, unless the OEM's follow Dell and start putting Linux as pre-installs on most of their laptops.

Let me smile, do you think that Ms will falling immediately? No gentlemen, it is a MONOPOLY and it will last a lot time yet. But now (unlike before) there are real alternatives, and the people (unlike before too) are waking up, and taking conscience. Apple, Linux, Google, they all besiege Ms (and it is serious.) But we want MS to fall? I don�t think so, we want MS to take conscience, that remembers who is (in the end) the motive of its existence (yes, that's us) if it doesn�t remember that, it (MS) will fail (history taught us that empires fell when forgotten-and MS is just a big company). And what DO we want? no manipulation, no monopoly, no domineering, no arrogance, good products and fair prices, etc. At the end, it's fair play .

Marco;

You made some really good points, like “do you think that MS will fall immediately?” No, but I do think that Vista is unpopular and could perhaps lose 5 to 10% of the desktop market share to Apple/Linux during the next couple of years.

Another point you made; “But we want MS to fall?” Actually, I don't want MS to fall completely. I would like to see them make a better OS, rather than one that slows down a new computer and is written for the RIAA/MPAA instead of the end user. I blame many of Vista's problems on the heavy DRM built into it. MS will be around for many many years, and any decline in its desktop shares will be gradual, unless, Vienna in 2009 is as bad as Vista is. Hopefully Vienna will get the lead (DRM) out, and get back to what computer users actually want in an OS. But I have my doubts, and unless MS takes a real beating because of Vista, they will continue down the path of heavy DRM and spying on their custermers.

The fact that Dell is now putting, or about to, Linux and XP on its computers does not say much for Vista. Also, I notice that CompUSA sales are not advertising Vista Basic in their laptop sales like they used to. They don't put the information up front anymore, that Vista Basic is the OS on it, and try to hide it on a second page where people are less likely to see it. When Vista first came out, it was up front in their ads as a selling point. Now I think retailers are thinking that Vista is hurting their PC sales for the most part.

As usual, Microsoft lies to cover its downward spiral. Like IBM in the 80s, this obsolete company is on its way out. I like using a modern operating system, not Vista which is based on barely-functioning, ancient Win32 code dating back to the 80s.

As usual, Microsoft lies to cover its downward spiral. Like IBM in the 80s, this obsolete company is on its way out. I like using a modern operating system, not Vista which is based on barely-functioning, ancient Win32 code dating back to the 80s.

I think Joe is a bit embarrassed because things turned out better than expected. Joe has been predicting since RTM that Vista missed the all important upgrade buying cycle from 2004 to be a success and now all of that was just unnecessary Microsoft Bash, Doom and Gloom. Stop it Joe, stop it, its annoying. Vista is a success, accept it. If you hate them so much, just blog about Linux and OS X.

Andre Da Costa: "I think Joe is a bit embarrassed because things turned out better than expected."

There's no embarrassment here, Andre. The numbers are pretty much as expected, when removing the one-time deferral, which really represents sales for Microsoft's fiscal second quarter.

We already knew from Microsoft's 20 million license announcement and retail analysts that there was going to be lot of channel fill to replace shelves purposely cleared out of XP stock. The two factors--the deferral and channel fill--are one-time events. These events allowed Vista sales growth to greatly exceed that of PC growth.

Because the majority of Windows client revenue comes from OEM sales, Vista sales normally would be closely aligned with PC shipments. When people buy PCs, they'll get Vista. If people don't buy PCs, Vista suffers. It's no more complicated than that. Vista's success mostly will depend on people buying PCs, aside from the one quarter abberation.

The real strength in the Q3 numbers is Office 2007, which is surprising. Office isn't constrained by PC sales, and consumers and SMBs snapped up Office at retail during the quarter. That's a great lead into business deployments later this year and next. Office 2007 is looking like a big hit for Microsoft and probably the more consistently selling of the two products.

Back-to-school season should be good for both Office 2007 and Vista, but probably much better for the productivity suite.

Joe

Funny, I read this article and I didn't see any "Microsoft bashing" or bias in the reporting. What Joe wrote is pretty much in line with what I've read elsewhere.

And I came to the same conclusion, having seen the numbers. I agree: the one-time deferral and channel fill do artificially inflate the Vista sales number for this quarter.

I also agree that Vista sales are closely aligned with PC sales. There's no mystery here, and there's no need for everyone to jump on Joe. Denying the obvious facts simply makes Joe's critics look like petulant children.

Let's chill. Don't paint *every* article as an attack on Microsoft. This one isn't.

It's also reasonable speculation that Vista sales may struggle for the next couple of quarters, as the channels try to clear their inventory before ordering more Vista licenses.

But in the long run, distribution will stabilize and we can expect steady Vista sales. Especially after Service Pack 1 comes out.

Don't anybody blow a gasket over this.

My problem is with some of Joe's unrealistic views such as Mac OS X will crucify Vista at Christmas sales. Look how successful that turned out to be, Apple can't even live up to the hype which was recently proven by the Leopard delay to October '07. I'm sure Joe will come again with the theories that OS X will be destroying Vista for the Fall (back to school) and Christmas '07 buying season.

Yes, its understandable that a insignificant amount of Vista's success was attributed to the free OEM upgrades, but there are people going out there in the stores purchasing Vista. And looking at Vista as a possible failure at this early point is just too soon, but I will leave that to Wall Street to decide. But, I guarantee you by mid 2008 Vista will be on over 100 million PCs or more.

I will admit, the requirements for Vista result in a less faster than previous migrations such as 98 and XP had in the past. But I am sure as PC buying trend starts and more people get exposed to it, Vista will be more of a success than it already is. Basically, success does not happen over night.

Joe
I knew it ... if I read through your comment that I would find something to "hang" you with ... and I did.
"We already knew from Microsoft's 20 million license announcement and retail analysts that there was going to be lot of channel fill to replace shelves purposely cleared out of XP stock. The two factors--the deferral and channel fill--are one-time events. These events allowed Vista sales growth to greatly exceed that of PC growth."
You have been protesting for ages now that Vista sales were not right .... now you are saying they are right ....gotcha !!
Quote "Stacking Vista Licences too High" (26th March) this was one of your headings, there is no question mark after it, therefore it is a "statement".
Now you are saying the opposite, this proves what I have been saying all along !
This site is against MS instead of being neutral like it used to be when Mary Jo Foley was here.

Andre Da Costa;

You said; "But, I guarantee you by mid 2008 Vista will be on over 100 million PCs or more."

Bet you at least half of those the users will wipe off Vista and put XP back on them, or even Linux. The web is dotted with posts of people wanting their XP back. Its why Dell is now offering XP again on some models.

Of course, if the Dell XP and Linux pre installed computers go well, then other OEM's will do the same thing. And therefore all those computers sold, may not come with Vista on them. MS will still get paid if its XP on them, but not Linux.

There is also a possibility of a recession, which will further dampen PC sales in general. So don't bet too heavy on that 100 million Vista computers. I know I won't be one of them using Vista.

Neil;

Is it your life's mission to make live ruff on Joe Wilcox? Why, do you work for MS? Do you own a bunch of MS stock? Or are you just trolling his articles?

Think about selling that stock before the next quarter comes out. By into Google instead or Red Hat. Or prehaps, like MS (your hero's) did, buy some Mac stock.

If you like Mary Jo Foley so much, why don't you go over there and post? Or did they ban you there?

Have something constructive to say for once, inside of just bashing people.

I know you like to stick up for the downtrodden. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Ballmer, 3 or the top 20 of the world's richest men, Bill being the richest. Nobody is looking out for these guys, except for you Neil. Maybe you should help out other rich people and blog for the Rockefellers, Kennedys, and Vanderbilts. Sure they all need your help.

Hey Chips
You are being a doom and gloom merchant.
"There is also a possibility of a recession", you would say that just because you don't like Vista, man oh man you Americans.
No wonder you guys have not grown out of your "wild west" era yet, with all your guns, talk about insecurity geez !
Is that what happen when you are a Linux user like yourself is it ??
Keep on reading the news mate and you will find that Vista is doing very well and that you guys are still going to be in the minority and that Windows (whatever flavour) is more widely used by the general population than Linux will ever be.
You like Linux ... fine ... but you don't have to go around saying bad things about our OS of choice. Then again why do you feel the need ?
Do you need to because all your friends use Windows and you don't, so what I am happy for you that you like Linux that is your choice.
You don't have to knock ours mate !

Chips
Sorry I don't know who Paul Allen is !
I do not own any MS stock, or any other stock for that matter !
I do not work for MS !
I just don't people being mis-informed thats all !
And I am sure that Joe Wilcox can look after himself, as he has said already on this site.
I am saying something constructive mate, you are the one who is "ripping" into people who don't have the same views as you.
I get the feeling from your comment that you don't Windows because the people responsible for it are wealthy, and that the people behind Linux are not ! Or something like that.
The people behind Linux may not be as wealthy as Bill Gates but they are that poor either mate.
I am sticking up for Windows, not a particular person just the OS and that's it !
If you hate wealthy people fine... I am not one !

Neil;

I have nothing against rich people, but on the otherhand, neither do I feel a need to make them even richer than they already are.

If MS comes out with a decent OS, (XP was there best) I would buy it. Windows has it uses, mostly for gaming.

But its as you said in an earlier comment, you Neil use XP. How come you are not using Vista since you seem to like it so much? Most of us would really like to know that, since its the OS you are defending, not the rich people.

"...but there are people going out there in the stores purchasing Vista."

Um, I've not seen any evidence that retail sales of Vista have added appreciably to Microsoft's revenue. All indications are that current Vista sales are closely tied to PC sales, ie, you get Vista with a new PC. If you have evidence to the contrary, you ought to cite the reference.

I agree that eventually Vista will be a "success," meaning that a large portion of the PC installed base will be running Vista. I don't think anyone is denying this, not even Joe.

What may be in dispute is the magnitude of Vista's penetration in the installed base. Given that XP is already a pretty good OS, most users will try to hang on to it for as long as possible. It's not as if Vista is a vast improvement over XP. (XP, on the other hand, was a vast improvement over Windows 98.)

In other words, it may take a very long time for Vista to reach the current XP penetration of 75 percent, as Vista expansion tracks with the replacement of aging PCs.

Richard;

You make some excellant points. I don't think Vista will become the dominate OS, unless MS never makes Vienna. Vista would surpass XP penetration on desktop computers except for one important fact that almost no one has mentioned. In the words of Steve Ballmer, "we won't go this long again without an major new OS." Vienna, the next Windows to replace Vista, is due out in 2009. It would take 5 years at the current rate of PC sales for Vista to overtake XP. But Vienna is due out in two years. New PC sales are at a rate of between 9 and 12% of the installed base. That is assuming that Vista is pre installed on all of them, and nobody wipes it off their computer.

Think about it, for those who wait for Vista SP1 or SP2, a few more months wait and Vienna will be out. I for one am hoping it will be a better effort.

Neil wrote: "Now you are saying the opposite, this proves what I have been saying all along!"

Neil,

There is no inconsistency. Just the opposite. The point of the 20 million licenses story was that Microsoft couldn't have sold 20 million licenses in the first month of Vista availability. Those licenses were sold since October, when Microsoft started the coupon program, which was the reason for the deferral.

The 20 million licenses and deferral are intimately connected as is the channel fill in.

Taking it a step further: Microsoft doubled up. Each redeemed coupon means Microsoft essentially sold two licenses for each PC, one XP and another Vista through January 30. PCs sold from end of October to end of January were XP sales, which converted to Vista sales later. The program benefited Microsoft, its partners and customers, but it's still a sales aberration.

The sales that matter, that will show how well Vista is doing, are those since January 30.

Neil, you're detecting bias where there is none. But that's OK. You're enthusiastic about Microsoft and its products. Enthusiasts like you are Microsoft's lifeblood. So, please, keep defending Microsoft.

Joe

Joe
I will only defend something or someone when they need to be defended.
I feel that Vista needs to be defended on this site so I am !
You have your opinion ... I have mine !
You never answered my question you know ...what did MS do to you that made you angry with them ?
Whether you feel you are biased or not, the way you write your articles is in a fashion that brings to fore all the Linux and Aplle devotees, and your predecessor never did that.
And that is not a compliment either !

Pardon me NEIL but I don't believe you. YOU don't only defend, but you do something worse- you bully. You bully joe, you bully anybody who speaks against MS, you bully anybody who happens to speak in favour of linux or apple, your excuse for this is foolish, you say that this site is MS watch-thus it should not criticise Ms. Excuse me, YOU don't decide that- it is not your right to do so.
Let me suppose something and excuse myself for doing so. why do you “defend “Ms with so much impetus: Is it to mark your point across? unless you got some problem, you know that we all understood your point a long time ago. The others possibilities do not speak well of you: stubbornness, glib high-mindedness, excessive free time, boredom, etc. There are other reasons which are better, intellectually speaking, (and more economic as well) but sadly these are not best when put against ethics. And you know about I am talking about.
Speaking about it. Is it in MS's politics now to contract mercenaries and so silence the bloggers who speak unfavourably of them? You don't need to answer me that.
About the times you sleep at- it was just irony (I was referring to the great amount of time you spend in front of the computer)
Maybe you will be asking yourself why I am writing to you. It's simple: I don't like bullies- be them you, MS or whoever.
And excuse me my lack of quickness at answering. (Obviously if you take the bother of answering me- another irony.) Nobody pays me to fight (or write answers) Also, I have got a life.

Oh, and I forgot. Although it may seem so, I'm not defending Joe- truth is all of us are doing what benefits him. Even though I know this, bullies still annoy me.
Hasta la vista baby !!

Neil wrote: "You never answered my question you know ...what did MS do to you that made you angry with them?"

I'm not the least bit angry with Microsoft, Neil. When I wrote about Apple years ago, the Mac lovers accused me of bias, too. Any perceived edge is from my style of writing. Nothing more.

That said, Microsoft makes plenty of mistakes, as do other companies. But Microsoft can't afford to make many mistakes right now. Competition from Google and Web 2.0 is increasing, threatening the 30-year desktop software model, which is Microsoft's core business.

In the states, and presumably in Australia, we have this saying about being tough on those you love most. When I was an analyst, Microsoft consulted me many times because I did talk tough. I told the folks there exactly what I thought. There's nothing huggy feely about business. It's rough play.

Vista won't flop, because most people in established Microsoft markets use Windows and will continue to do so. But no flop is by no means success either. Microsoft's fiercest competitor is itself. Windows XP + Web applications will keep back many people from making a fast move to Vista. Microsoft needed to make Vista a "Wow" experience, by reducing complexity, which it failed to do.

Some of that complexity will reduce over time, as hardware, drivers and applications catch up with Vista. The measure of Vista's success will be back-to-school season here in the Northern Hemisphere and holiday selling season. The Mac enthusiasts may gloat now, but Vista should pull strong sales during second half. Caveat: Until businesses begin mass deployments, Vista growth will be tempered by PC sales.

I'm not angry at Microsoft, Neil. Actually, I rarely get angry at anybody or anything.

Joe

Marco, you've pegged Neil correctly, accurately, and with much eloquence, if I may say so. I agree with you 100 percent. Neil, along with so many other Windows enthusiasts, perceive any kind of Windows criticism as an assault on their beloved platform. And if there is even a hint of negativity in the reporting, they take it as a slight against Microsoft.

The same phenomenon can be see in the Linux and Mac worlds, as well. None of the major desktop platforms are immune to this kind of passion, intolerance, and childish behaviour. But I have to say, in all my research on the Internet, Neil is the most extreme case of paranoia, intolerance, and sensitivity I have come across. No one else even comes close!

I believe Joe. I don't think he has an axe to grind with Microsoft. And Joe is telling the truth about being labelled a Mac bigot some years ago.

Look, here's what we all need to understand:

First, although Microsoft Watch is tailored for Microsoft-specific reporting, it is perfectly appropriate to cover Open Source and Apple here. Why? Because the fates of all three principal platforms are intimately tied together. If an event in the Linux or Mac world has an impact on Microsoft, it needs to be discussed in this forum.

Second, it's alright to talk about the pros and cons of all three platforms here. None of them is above criticism, for none of them is perfect.

And if posters encourage readers to try out the other platforms, that's okay, too. The IT space is shared by Windows, Linux, and Mac, and the latter two are perfectly good desktop alternatives.

Third, people have a right to express their opinions and reveal their platform experiences without being attacked and accused of "mud-slinging." This is just plain rude behaviour. And extremely childish.

You do not win arguments through bullying. You win by presenting your case with dignity and integrity. And you should *always* respect your opponent.

Neil, it's not knocking your favourite desktop platform by making sure that potential Vista adopters are aware of the possible pitfalls. I want consumers to purchase Vista with their eyes wide open, because buying a PC today is a very comnplicated decision.

Potential Vista adopters should understand the following things:

DRM, or Digital Rights Management
It's built right into Vista, the first and only desktop OS to do so. While it's too early to tell, consumers should know that DRM may in the future limit their freedom and flexibility with respect to how they use their digital media content. You have to ask yourself: "Do I want to take this risk?"

Hardware Requirements
Vista has the highest hardware requirements of all the principal platforms. With 512MB of memory, you can boot up Vista but you can't do much else. (On the other hand, the same machine will run Linux just fine.)

Even Mac OS X, which is hardly lean, will run adequately in 512MB. But not so Vista.

This isn't an issue for new PCs, which typically come with 1-2GB of RAM, dual-core processor, and Aero-compliant graphics. But if you're contemplating upgrading an existing PC, you damn well better be aware of the hardware requirements. (Without Aero-compliant graphics, you won't see the pretty Glass interface that Microsoft advertises so heavily.)

Security Features
One of the BIGGEST selling points that Microsoft has been pushing is Vista's security features. However, consumers need to understand that they won't get all the features as advertised unless they buy Vista Business or Ultimate. And these latter editions are very expensive.

The "Version 1.0" Syndrome
With many millions of lines of new code, Vista is the most complicated commercial software project in history. As good as Microsoft are, they cannot test every significant execution pathway in their program. Do you suppose that more than a few major bugs have eluded their testers?

In other words, as is typical of all "Version 1.0" software, Vista has to have a lot of bugs. Most Vista users may not encounter any problems, but there will be enough who do to raise a red flag. Again, the question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I want to take the risk?"

That's why I recommend waiting for Service Pack 1, or even Service Pack 2, before migrating to Vista. This is only prudent. But if you feel comfortable taking the risk, fine. I just want to make sure that the buying public understands what they're getting into.

All of the above points have been made by others in this blog but I've summarized them here for your convenience. These people weren't slinging mud at Vista, and neither am I.

To: Chris B.

Sorry, but the Linux grabbing huge desktop share story has been used so many times now its starting to remind me of used bubble gum on the pavement. Linux will never get 0.99% of the desktop, Windows whether you like it or not will remain the dominant desktop operating system for years to comes. Linux only has talk in the Server market, and even there Windows Server has a very strong presence.

Dell has a been carrying Linux for years on some of it systems and its been nothing more than a laughing stock. I'm sure anybody who was to purchase a system preloaded with Linux would simply format it and load a pirated copy of XP, - Windows, its just that good.

I will admit, my sister in law is one of those users who recently purchased a Dell system with Vista Basic and was so disgusted by the performance, she purchased an OEM XP Pro and loaded it on. (check my blog for details) But the performance issue was attributed to Dells crappy hardware and I'm glad they are getting a whooping from HP for producing underperformed systems.

Chris, you may not be one one of those 100 million Vista users, but come back here mid '08 and get ready to eat your words.

Andre Da Costa :

Actually its Chips, but whats in a name. Yes Vista could be at 100 million by that date. MS has everything that a monopoly has going for it. Its very hard to buy a computer without Vista on it, especially a laptop. So unless Dell and a few others do start putting Linux on some computers, you may be correct.

However, my real point has been, don't look for it to replace XP as the dominate OS. People just don't buy computers every year, at least most.

Also, expect MS to make money on Vista, they made money on every OS they have released so far, including 98ME, Dos4, why should Vista be any different?

I would not expect Linux (or even MAC OS/X) to become the dominant OS anytime soon. Even if Vista is the new ME2. And, I am not saying that it is, only so far it has too many problems for me. (maybe not others) I one of my previous posts I did state that Mac/Linux might pick up between 5 and 10% of the desktop userbase in the next couple of years. It could be more or less, but this is my educated guess, and it not that Linux will become the dominant OS any time soon. What MS is doing with Vista has major impact on non-MS Operating Systems, both good and bad.

I use XP and Mepis/PCLinuxOS Linux about 50-50 of the time. Both Windows and Linux have their strenghts and weaknesses. To me this is not about favorites, or which football team (MS or Linux) I favor. Its about getting and using the best software for each application.

While I have decided that Vista is a problematic OS at best, with DRM that I will not allow on my computers, I do like and defend XP. Furthermore, should MS remember us end users, and remove the DRM, come up with a reasonable pricing structure, I would consider buying Vienna when it comes out in 2009. Its easy enough to have the best of both worlds, Windows (XP for me) and Linux just by dual booting.

Do not fear, MS will be around for many many years, and will be releasing Windows in some form as long as people like you will buy them. They are not going away. So should your worse fears come true, and Linux (its free btw) become the dominate OS down the road, you can be sure that there will still be folks who will not convert and will pay for Windows. Freedom of choice is a great thing, would you not agree?

Reguards, Chips

Perhaps when I said "defend" XP, that was too strong a word.

This site is all about knowing what is happening with MS, both the good and the bad. I don't want my news censured, because folks or professionals want to unfairly heckle those who bravely write this artcles. So far what I have seen is Joe Wilcox doing a great job of presenting the facts.

And you know what, if Vista starts selling like hotcakes, Joe will let us know down the road.

Further, I respect people who can agrue with the "facts," if they can present facts in their defense. Emotion, should not be used to disagee with facts presented.

Andre Da Costa is another of those over-zealous Windows enthusiasts who feel threatened by positive Linux reporting. I have never seen a published report predicting that Linux was going to become the dominant desktop OS, replacing Windows. And whether or not Linux grabs "huge" desktop share depends on your definition of "huge."

Every percentage gain in marketshare for Linux or Mac is a percentage loss for Microsoft, the PC market being a zero-sum game. This is a serious matter. For Linux, a percentage gain would be "huge," given its initial marketshare of only a few percentage points. And a percentage loss for Microsoft would give their management fits because it would represent a potential loss of billions of dollars in revenue over time.

If Linux could achieve a marketshare of, say, 10-15 percent, that would be phenomenal, even though Windows would remain the dominant desktop OS. This is what could be meant by "huge," and it is certainly within the realm of possibility. Andre, you cannot say with a straight face that Linux will never get 0.99 percent of the desktop. You have no evidence to support this assertion, and last time I checked you are not Nostradamus.

Linux in the desktop space has been growing the last few years and *if* it can undergo a seismic shift in popularity (a definite possibility), it could see a 10 percentage gain or higher. Never say never.

Come on Richard, of course its easy to predict that Linux will never get 0.99 percent of the desktop market. The fact its at fault for that, OEMs are confused by Linux, supporting it is a definite nightmare, which distribution to choose, proprietary conflicts using codecs and DRM technologies that would actually make the OS user friendly are shunned upon by the Open Source Community. The infinite amount of distributions and forked flavors makes it such an incompatible platform its basically a death trap for an inexperienced user coming from Windows or the Mac OS to think about migrating to Linux.

I am not a over-zealous Windows enthusiast although I support the platform a lot, I just think of my self as a realist. Linux does not have what it takes to meet the needs of most users. Think about it, I can use Windows 2000 and Office 2000, no support and feel right at home without any support, simply because everyone knows it inside out. The fast upgrade cycles literally makes a distribution of Linux obsolete in a heartbeat, you can run XP for years and never have to worry even when MS kills mainstream support. Look at Win98 still going strong, thats suicide on Linux and especially Mac OS X.

You say you have never seen a published report about Linux doing mass destruction on the desktop? Sounds like you only read what you want to see. Check the usuals, OSNews, OSDir, SlashDot, do a simple Google search and you will see my point. Linux will have a hard time getting 10 to 15 percent desktop market share, with Windows continuing to grow and reach new markets faster than Linux could ever dream, factors include Government preference, people preference, localization and wider support (Device drivers, third-party software) and so on.

I run Linux on an experimental basis through VPC'07 and its ok from a research and experimental point of view, but thats about it for me. I want an OS that just works, and thats what Windows offers, the only issues I have with Vista right now is simply performance and I'm sure when updates are delivered for my hardware and the OS such as SP1 there will be more satisfied users. But its not holding me back not like what Linux the incompatible OS would. Hey, to each his own, if you think Linux gets the job done for you fine. But don't twist peoples minds into thinking its the be it all, end it all of operating systems as many have made it out to be since 1999.

Andre Da Costa :

Thats FUDdy, or funny, there are some very easy to install and use Linux distro's out there. I might suggest PCLinuxOS and SimplyMepis to you. You can find the download links at distrowatch.com They install in as little as 7 minutes to the hard drive. Both will run from the live cd so you can test out all your hardware before you decide if you want to install it. Windows will not do that! Not only do you not need a serial number, but did I mention it does not sell for $380 like some Operating Systems do? BTW its free. Did I mention its virus free as well? Did I mention there is a lack of spyware, trojans, adware, malware, and all the other stuff that we windows users have to put up with? Did I mention that you will not defrag your hard drive, ever? Did I mention in that 7 minute install, you will get OpenOffice, a cd and dvd burner and a general host of usuable software, enough to be productive right away. How long does it take to install and scan just the antivirus program in windows? And then add in all the other programs you need? 1, 2 , or 3 days of your life? Don't get me wrong, windows is still useful, but linux is a better OS for most uses on the internet. Surfing and email, just from a sercurity standpoint.

Linux is an OS made up of many distros, some not for beginners. Its come a long way from what it was when it started out, but then so has windows come a long way from when in started out as Dos 1.0. So you may have been right about Linux, if you were talking about 1998.

As I keep saying, they is no need to decide between Linux and Windows. Its does not need to be one or the other. You can have both, on the same hard drive, XP and Linux. The two distros I suggusted make that very easy to do. Windows, or at least, XP, 2000, 98SE, has it uses to be sure. But I am not so sure about Vista ever being very useful.

Linux hasn't gained much desktop share because it is so fragmented and unfriendly to ISVs and hardware manufacturers.

Meanwhile Server 2003 continues to gain in web hosting which has been Linux's dominant area. As much as I would like to see more competition for Microsoft, Linux isn't it. Working with Linux made me realize that the people behind it really don't want it to compete with Windows and would rather it be an exclusive club than a widely used operating system.

In '99 everyone believed that Linux would easily have 10-15% by this time. The bigger debate then was whether or not it would hit 50.

Use OpenSolaris if you want a free Unix. It's a complete OS, not a kernel shared by over a hundred different operating systems, few of which have any technical advantages over the others.

Linux is a chaotic mess that has been hyped to death by the tech media. It only made gains in the server arena because Unix was so expensive.

Chips sez:
"Its very hard to buy a computer without Vista on it"

Step 1: Google "computer NO OS"

Very difficult indeed.

David Connors :

Yes David Connors, you are right, google for computer no os. You can do that, you can even find laptops with linux on them. There will be shipping charges of course, and they will cost more as a rule .

But what is hard yet at this point is going down to say Best Buy, CompUSA, OfficeMax, Office Depot, Circuit City, or Staples, and getting a laptop with no OS or Linux on it. It where the almost everyone goes. Guess I should have worded that better.

Reguards, Chips

If there was demand for Linux than those companies you mentioned would sell computers with Linux on them. There is no MS conspiracy. Companies like Red Hat have made millions by meeting demand for Linux. That demand has been on the server though, not the desktop. Have a little faith in the free market :)

The problem you face is that there is no demand for Linux on the desktop. Windows is only $100, which for most people isn't a big deal. Most Americans will drop $50 at Applebee's and think nothing of it. You pay twice that for Windows and you know that all of the software and hardware you purchase at stores like Best Buy will run on your computer. Compound this with the fact that the crapware that comes installed reduces the cost of the OS, and you can see why Best Buy does not sell Linux desktops.

Linux is also unfriendly to ISVs which basically means that porting something like Photoshop to Linux is a huge PITA compared to porting to OS/X.
Linux just has too many factors going against it as a desktop OS. It may gain some market share but don't expect a revolution.

In summary you need to create demand before you can expect a business to sell something. You can always start your own business if you think that demand is not being met.

Andre, I agree with you to a certain extent, but let's not exaggerate. Supporting Linux is not a "nightmare." And while there are a lot of distros, there are only a handful that really matter in the marketplace, including Ubuntu, SUSE, and RedHat/Fedora.

Also, what have I written that even remotely suggests that Linux is the be all and end all of operating systems??? Who's twisting people's minds here?

One other thing: I'm not sure if you mean 0.99% (~1%) or 99%. If you're suggesting that Linux will never reach 1% of the desktop, then I think you really are in serious denial.

David, you're right, demand is critical to the success of any platform, and widespread demand for Linux just isn't there yet. But it's a very ungracious exaggeration on your part to say that "no demand" exists for Linux desktop. More and more people around the world are adopting Linux and while I wouldn't dare suggest that it's a juggernaut, the demand is steadily growing.

Another falsehood is that $100 is not a big deal for *most* people. Really? Is that why people swarm to Wal-mart and Winners to save a few bucks? North American society is so price-conscious, you wouldn't believe.

And that $100 you allude to gets you Home Premium. If you want Vista Business or Ultimate, the ante goes up quite a bit. On the other hand, Linux is the *full* operating system with the *full* complement of features for a vanishingly small price.

And I'm going to surprise you, David. You're right, Linux is not going to become a revolution. It's not going to dominate the desktop. It will gain marketshare. We're only arguing magnitude. You put a cap of, what, 5 percent? I put a cap of 15 percent.

David,

You have few facts if any correct about Linux. As far as Linux being unfriendly to ISVs and hardware manufacturers, you are all wet. Oem's fear installing Linux on their computers because of Microsoft. Dell is going to do it because its sales are hurting badly and it has to do something. I would not suggust OpenSolarius as a good unix distro for beginnings over newbie friendly linux ones. This is a tactic I have seen before from MS Fanboys, MS Professional bloggers to discourage people trying Linux. They usually even suggest Gentoo, which is the most user unfriendly distro out there. You seem very anti-linux to me.

Also, the $100 bucks to give to MS is a big deal if you don't have any plans to use Vista on your new computer/laptop. It flat stops me from buying a laptop. Their are many people who have Windows licenses from past Windows versions that could also legally use then by transferring them to a new computer, but they still have to pay the MS tax. Here is one of the richest companies in the world, run by several of the worlds richest men, including the all time highest, Bill Gates, still using its monopoly power to insure that new computers come with Vista, and everyone pays again.

Andre;

I checked your link, it seems you sell Vista. Fairly discounted of course. But even at the prices you have discounted it too, I would suggest its not worth it. In your own words you have noticed a performance hit. Really, there is no guarintee that MS will "fix" all these problems in SP1, or if there will ever be a SP2 for Vista. Most likely, like 98ME they will just move on to Vienna in 2009 and give up on Vista. Not only this way can MS make money on Vista sales, but those with Vista problems will be forced to quickly buy the next OS Vienna hoping to get their computers running better.

Chips, I am sorry but I have to disagree with you, and this idea about Windows as a tax, paying $100 for the OS is paying thousands of developers who work on Windows to make a living, its called intellectual property. You are paying for the peace of mind, the service and support you get with the Windows platform which is unparalleled on Linux. The fact you know that your applications and devices will work on Windows just takes the cake in my opinion. Linux support is a literal safari and I'm sure the majority of PC users out there are not up for any of that. Linux is not intellectual property, its just immature, stick it to the man propaganda. If it wasn't for Company's like IBM, Novell and some others who felt sorry for it (but at the same felt threatened by the reality that is Windows), Linux would still be the experiment it has been for so many years.

You say Windows does not come with Office, fine, but who cares, I can download OO.org for Windows, or you can simply use an old version of Office on Vista, which works just fine and is superior in ease of use and features compared to OO.org, Office 97 works great on Vista too. You say Microsoft will not fix any issues in Vista related to performance in SP1, how do you know this? Do you have early access to the code to come to such a conclusion? As for Vienna, stop mistaking rumor sites and an MS employees assumption that it might appear in '09. The last I heard about the next client release its a focus for out of band technologies that were being incubated, but were not finish on time to make it into the final release of Vista, not necessarily performance related. Still, it might focus on new paradigms such as being more multi-threaded (better multi-core processor support) with better memory management along with roles based and presence as key features.

There are a number of factors why Vista performance might seem unsatisfactory now, I noted on my blog, Vista is basically an industry effort. The quality will be determined by how well, device drivers and applications are written for the OS and the types of systems OEMs deliver to consumers. For example, support for the new user privilege and signed drivers for Vista x64. There might be small problems on Vista right now, as evidence by the nVidia G80 series cards drivers, but I'm sure the experience is better than anything you will get on Linux.

Andre Da Costa :

your statement; "Windows as a tax, paying $100 for the OS is paying thousands of developers who work on Windows to make a living, its called intellectual property. You are paying for the peace of mind, the service and support you get with the Windows platform which is unparalleled on Linux."

1. Fine, it does provide paychecks to thousand of coders. Also profit for shareholders, and well as enriching people like Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, and others, how have more many than they can spend in many lifetimes. Since when is it a good idea to pay for something we will not use or want? This is the power of the monopoly that we are not being protected from by the government at work.

2. Linux has matured, its actually better at many things than even XP, far safer to surf the web and get ones email on Linux than any Windows, including Vista. And this probably also applies to the Mac OSX as well, but I do not own a Mac. Now Windows does have its uses, I use both. And I still count myself as a windows user. I have never understood why in many peoples minds it has to be one or the other, it dosn't.

3. Since you are in the business of selling Vista, I can see why you would want to defend your livihood. I even see some moderation in your comments that you have seen performance hits with Vista. MS should never have certified low end laptops to run vista basic with 512mb of ram, if they were going run as dogs. I for one, will not blame the OEM's for this as they are almost forced to install Vista, and will be come January 2008 when MS takes XP off the shelf for OEM's.

4. Since you are in the business (your link) of selling Vista, (to your credit, you have marked it down to a better price) would it be a fair question to ask you if you are selling the OEM versions, or upgrade, or full versions?

5. Getting back to what Joe's article is all about. It would not be nice to ask you how many Vista licenses you are stuck with, or if they are selling "like hotcakes." But could I ask you what percent of the licenses you have sold of which kind? This would be interesting. After all, wouldn't you be a part of the "channel" in this reguard?

1. Fine, it does provide paychecks to thousand of coders. Also profit for shareholders, and well as enriching people like Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, and others, how have more many than they can spend in many lifetimes. Since when is it a good idea to pay for something we will not use or want? This is the power of the monopoly that we are not being protected from by the government at work.

>>> Bill Gates has said numerous times the vast majority of his fortune will be donated to charity. You have to understand Microsoft is a business, not a free bank. IBM, Novell and Redhat are businesses too. They are no different when it comes to making money. So your arguments of MS being a monopolist is just taking the easy way out on this one.>>Yes, it has matured but still lacks the maturity of modern operating systems such as Mac OS X and Windows. Some factors include aesthetics, management and simple ease of use. I don't hate Linux, I just don't consider it an operating system I would like to use daily. Just does not meet my standards.>> I am not in the business of selling Vista, I am responsible for a small network at a Print Shop in my parish. I think both Microsoft and the OEMs are to be blamed for the performance on systems, Dell should test their systems to guarantee its an acceptable performance to be used by the buyer. Microsoft should have demanded that OEMs provide 1GB minimum RAM without charging extra. Its no secret Vista loves RAM and runs better with RAM. >> Not an OEM, can't answer, but based on whats going on at local OEMs, its selling well, since all of the OEMs I have been to are specifically preloading systems with Vista Basic. Consumers aren't outright asking for XP unless they know they want it. I think the only disappointment Microsoft would find is OEMs not upselling consumers to the premium SKU's such as Home Premium and Ultimate or even Business.

5. Getting back to what Joe's article is all about. It would not be nice to ask you how many Vista licenses you are stuck with, or if they are selling "like hotcakes." But could I ask you what percent of the licenses you have sold of which kind? This would be interesting. After all, wouldn't you be a part of the "channel" in this reguard?

>>> Again, I can't answer this since I'm not in the business of selling licenses. But I will tell you this, I manage 15 computers and one server, not all the PCs are running Vista because some software programs need to be updated to function properly. Check my blog for details.<<<

Andre, you seem to have an awful lot of contempt for Linux. What's your problem, exactly?

I like the way you take liberties with your speculation. How do you know that these companies "felt sorry" for Linux and acquired it? It certainly wouldn't be good business practice to do so on this basis.

Linux has been undergoing continuous development and evolution for over 15 years. (The latest kernel now has real-time support!) The current Windows codebase is younger than that if you go back to NT, and younger still if you only go back to Windows 2000. If anything, Linux is *more* mature than Windows. Calling it "immature" is an inaccurate characterization.

I can't help feeling that your contemptuous remarks stem from the fact that you make your living off Windows. Show some personal integrity and exhibit some balance in your commentaries.

As an operating system agnostic, I view all the desktop platforms with objectivity and balance. If either Linux or Windows have shortcomings, I'll be happy to point them out on this blog. But I won't tolerate misleading comments that arise out of spite or hatred.

There is simply no reason to let emotions spark a flame war...

>>>Yes, it has matured but still lacks the maturity of modern operating systems such as Mac OS X and Windows. Some factors include aesthetics, management and simple ease of use. I don't hate Linux, I just don't consider it an operating system I would like to use daily. Just does not meet my standards.

I guess we simply disagree on this one. Aesthetically, GNOME and KDE look pretty impressive to me. And I find Ubuntu, for example, fairly approachable.

Is Windows easier than Linux? I think so. But just because Windows is easier doesn't mean that Linux is hard. I can imagine people using it for daily activities. And a growing international user base does.

Maybe it's just because I've been following Linux developments more closely than you have, but I'm seeing major progress in usability and management tools all the time. Linux meets my standards...

Andre Da Costa;

Sorry, I got you wrong thinking that it was you selling Vista Box versions on your website link, while now I think its your affilates? As you do have links on your site that link to the Vista sales, correct?

I am not going to pass judgement on Bill Gates, and all his money. If he donates most of that to worthy causes, thats a good thing. My guess is he says he plans to give 90% away, which will still leave him more than 5 billion in the bank. He could also give us windows custermers a break and lower the cost of windows as well, that would also be a worthy cause.

Iowa and California were two states that recently had class actions suits settled by MS for overcharging for Windows. So its not only me who thinks Windows costs too much. Look for a lot more of these types of lawsuits in the future. They may not be in the state courts, but by various countries around the world.

Microsoft is a monopoly, with 90 to 95% of the desktop market. Even the US government agrees, and has convicted Microsoft as a Monopoly. Sadly, they only got a slap on the hand for this, our government (not) at work.

Oddly you complain about Dell being a crappy company because Vista would not work on their cheap entry level laptop where XP worked well. Sounds more like a Vista problem to me. Not that I have any interest in Dell, and I have never owned one. But if they were to put Linux, or no OS on one of these entry level Dell Laptops, minus the MS TAX, on sale, I would be interested in buying it.

Chips sez:

"As far as Linux being unfriendly to ISVs and hardware manufacturers, you are all wet."

I'm guessing that is a British idiom because actually I'm quite dry. I will be taking a shower soon though :)

Anyways Linux is a huge pain for ISVs and hardware manufacturers because Linux is technically not a single OS but collection of operating systems. Even if you only target one distribution you still have the problem of there being no stable abi, which basically means that Linus doesn't care if his kernel update breaks your program. Compound this with the fact that most distributions use an application deployment system that works best with open source, since Linus in his infinite wisdom decided to keep Unix's shared library system. Drivers are also expected to be open source, even though companies like ATI want to keep their code private. In their hearts Linus and pals want all software to be open source, and they have made it difficult for companies that write proprietary software to work with Linux. The people that say that porting to Linux isn't a problem don't develop commercial software for a living so they have no idea as to how much work and support would go into bringing a Windows application to Linux, especially one that was created in Visual Studio.

But then I don't really care if they don't understand, since I target Windows and I prefer the underlying architecture of NT. So carry the Linux flag, whatever, I don't care.

David;

I use both windows and Linux, and like both. Yes, I can see your heart is in NT land. I spotted that right away, with your opensolarius post, and from the "facts" you keep trying to present about Linux as real.

BTW, I use an ATI card with dual monitors with a closed source ATI driver in SimplyMepis Linux, no problem at all, so you are wrong again on that one.

It dosn't have to be who is carry the flag for which OS type of thing. But misrepresenting the facts is wrong. If you don't know, best to not post, unless you are one of those MS Shills posting FUD to keep folks from trying an alternative OS. Not saying you are, but its possible.

I wonder how many MS employs to blog on sites like this to promote Vista sales? I have heard upwords of 900.

David, your comments about ISVs and IHVs and proprietary drivers are spot on. Can't argue with you. However, despite the difficulties, Linux has managed to achieve reasonably good hardware and application support, at least good enough to make Linux a viable platform.

I appreciate your preference for Windows. But it makes no sense whatsoever to deny that Linux is gaining strength in the desktop space. Linux and Open Source are not going away; they will continue to compete with Windows (and Apple Mac) for the foreseeable future.

Chips,

I never said that no ATI driver exists, but I'm sure you know that there have been conflicts over this issue. Linux is simply not designed to be used with closed-source drivers.

As for misrepresenting facts, the reason I replied to you in the first place was because you claimed that it is hard to get a computer without an OS. I showed that this wasn't true.

If you're insinuating that I am paid by MS to post here, then why would I suggest using OpenSolaris?

As for facts, here's one for you: Linux is NOT an OS, it's a kernel.

There are over 100 operating systems built on this kernel, so many in fact that they are tracked at a website called distrowatch. Linux does not take computing to a new level, in fact it is a step backwards since so much code is rewritten in each distro. If all those people worked together on the same OS then we probably wouldn't be having these conversations.

The point is that there are plenty of reasons to not only dislike but despise Linux, even from an anti-MS point of view. So be aware of this before accusing someone of being a paid shill.

--

Richard,

I don't think Linux is going away either, and I never denied that it has been gaining desktop share.
I would prefer to see OpenSolaris become MS's main competitor since it is a complete OS, but again since I prefer NT to Unix I really don't care. :)

now will someone believe me that this site is "Microsoft Bash"

What's your point, Neil? Or should I say, Mr. Steve Balmer, as your endless and tiresome rampages mimic fairly closely?

Since "Microsoft" is a synonym of "Monopoly", this site might also be called "Monopoly Bash". Why is bashing a monopoly so repugnant to you? This sort of bashing isn't new. Monopolies were bashed by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act many years before.
Do you need vindication in the fact that the Microsoft monopoly continues to earn huge revenues? Fine, you have it. Enough already!

On April 21, you said:

There are hardly any commenters left now that are on the "good" side as they have left in disgust at the views of the editor (Joe Wilcox) fairly soon I will too ... but not yet!

What's your definition of "fairly soon"? When you finally come to terms that "Microsoft Watch" is anti-Microsoft, just like Microsoft's Get the Facts site is anti-Linux? What is taking you so long to realize this? Why does one little ol' blog irk you so much?

Unless you are really Steve Balmer posting under the name "Neil".

David;

I am not saying you are a shill for MS, it was a question? I just found it strange that one would like OpenSolarious, and not Linux, or vice versa.

And yes, you are correct that Linux is the kernel not the OS. It really should be called GNU/Linux. Even then, each linux distro uses differnet scripts, open source programs and drivers, Xwindow managers, which set them apart from one another. While to say they all use the same kernel is sort of correct, there are many differnt hacked versions of the same kernel. Ubuntu for example uses the same kernel as Debian, but modiflies it. The kernel is still Linux at heart, but the apps are the GNU part.

Solarious, on the other hand is a real Unix, which Linux was developed to use unix programs and be modeled after. BSD is also another offshoot of AT&T Unix. Solarious, owned by Sun Microsystems, uses it own kernels, but Sun has open sourced it. So we now have OpenSolarous. There are at 2 or 3 other distros based on OpenSolarus, Nexenta being one of them. Linux is able to run some of the older Unix programs, not all. The same is said of OpenSolarious, it can run most, not all GNU programs that Linux runs. Which makes both Linux and OpenSolarious similar. Sun open sourced it because in their own words it was falling behind Linux in programs and therefore losing market share. It is a very nice nix, just not a user friendly as some of the newbie Linux distros out there.

It really dosn't have to be a carry the flag thing for one OS or not. I keep saying I like and use XP as well. Its very nice to have both OS'es on the hard drive and just reboot into the one that does the best job for each task. Just don't understand why people think they have no choice but to go one way or the other. Not saying this applies to you, David.

Sorry this discussion has turned out to be about Linux and not Vista which is what Joe is writting about. Guess what it does come down to is this, is Vista so bad that folks will hold off on buying a new computer because Vista is on it? And if so, are they only other choices besides Vista, (using XP for a long as they can) or waiting for Vienna to come out, is Linux/BSD/Solarious or Mac?

I think OpenSolaris would be a good choice too, David, but realistically it's so far behind in mindshare that I don't think it'll ever become a major desktop platform.

The Open Source community is attempting to address the concerns you pointed out. I have confidence that in a few years' time, we'll see a more standardized platform for ISVs and IHVs.

But for now, the "chaotic mess" is tolerable because there are only a few popular distros that really matter in the marketplace. Linux adoption is actually not as onerous as you suggest.

Bought a HP laptop the other day with Vista on it, seems nice in the store. It wasn't till I got it home that I discovered Vista has some problems. Can't find things that were in XP. The interface with Aero while it looks pretty, slows things down. But, about every couple of hours it crashes bad or just completely locks up. Maybe its a driver issue, I don't care. All I know is XP did not do this.

Worse, all my old XP programs are not compatable! What does MS think, that everyone is as filthy rich as they are and can run out and just buy new programs? This laptop is going back to the store tomorrow, either they put XP on it, or take it back.

XP; allow or deny this!

Maybe even linux has got to be better than this crappy Vista. Perhaps I will try it, for sure Vista is not an upgrade path. Beware.

I am so tired of hearing of how linux and Mac OS is more secure than windows. Get your facts together guys, even a simple count of the vulnerabilities found in all OS's will show, that this is simply not true. If any of these OS, riches a significant market share, the vulnerabilities will sky rocket....

Evan;

As I gaze into my cystal ball, well forget that. Don't think either of us can predict the future. Why Linux is more secure than Windows? Thats what you are doubting, even though every linux using is telling you that. I doubting it too, so its a fair question.

Exploits are not viruses. Potentional Exploits are just that. In Linux there are many eyes on the open source code, so the serious problems get fixed quickly. Many of the exploits are not serious. Linux (except for 2 very small distros) uses limited users accounts, which needs passwords to allow software to be installed. Including Viruses, Trojans, etc. Many of these exploits, say one in Firefox, is there in Firefox, but still cannot get past the password to install.

Now Windows does have a way to setup limited user accounts as well. Sadly, almost nobody except businesses does this. I think its because the Windows user accounts were designed as a tool for a company to only allow a limited user to just use a few programs, like Office. To burn CD's or move files as a limited user in Windows is a lot harder to do than in Linux. Therefore, most people run windows using the administrator account.

Vista was an attempt by MS part to correct this, but what I have seen on the web is, that Vista nags the user so bad that they turn off the UAC right away. Perhaps the way windows was setup long ago made the job of making the limited user accounts in windows easy to use like it is in Linux.

At least in Linux there is no Virus in the wild (at large) at this time. Mepis Linux comes with its own built in firewall and antivirus. The antivirus is used to scan for windows viruses, as there are no linux viruses in the wild.

Hope this helps to understand why things are the way they are. Windows could be very secure if it was possible to run as a limited user account easily. As you can see, almost no home users do so. As far as the Mac OSX goes, its based on Darwin and BSD (a form of Unix). I don't own a Mac, they are more expensive than I want to pay. XP and dual booting with Linux work very well for me.

Chips, you summarize the security situation quite nicely. It's true that all the desktop platforms have vulnerabilities. Always have, always will.

But there are far, far fewer viruses in the wild for Linux and Mac. The Mac does have a significant marketshare (comprising millions of users), and we have yet to see an actual Mac virus.

But here's the irony: Linux and Mac are safer platforms precisely because of their smaller marketshares. Neither Linux nor Mac will ever dominate the desktop. Therefore, Windows (including Vista) will always be more insecure than these alternatives.

chips b malroy,
I don't have the time to list you recent vulnerabilities on these OS. It's easy to look it up by doing a web search. Vulnurabities that allow an attacker to take complete control of the MAC OS X, that were recently patched by Apple can hardly be regarded as not serious..

Evan;

There is probably about the same number of vulnerablities in all operating system, except for one fact, Windows has Internet Exploder and Outlook Express closely built into the OS, and those two programs are what most virus/trojan writers target.

Also, as I stated before, most vulnerabilities are already taken care of in Linux since one is normally running as a limited account.

XP and most other windows, has the ability to setup a user account, which will make a lot safer. Sadly, its a royal pain to do a lot as a limited user in XP. Many things will have to be run from the command line, using the "run as" command. Its why I have not seen anybody use a limited user account outside of a company with a lan. Now MS tried with Vista for the first time, to their credit, to make users during the Vista install, setup a limited user account. Again, judging from the posts I have seen on the web, people view this as a nusance, and turn off the UAC. Its possible that MS has not made it any easier to actually use. This would have helped a lot had they taken the time to do so.

As far as Mac vulnerabilities, ask Richard, I do not use Mac. But I would state, a vulnerability is not the same thing as a virus or trojan, and most in linux are of low priority because of the fact people are already using limited accounts which stop the vulnerablility anyway. These exploits are fixed, but the serious ones first. I can say that they are no linux viruses in the wild, there are about a dozen rootkits, which you can get by runnning as the administrator account (root).

Richard;

While I think Linux or Mac will not become the dominate OS for awhile, I would never say they won't. I do expect some modest gains because Vista has provided some discontent. Mac is more expensive, and therefore will make inroads among the elite PC users. It does appear to be a better OS than Windows like Linux for many functions, not all. Linux has the potential to dominate. It has a lot going for it. Free as opposed to $380 for Vista Ultimate full version. I think a core of windows users are getting tired of being squeezed in these expensive upgrade cycles, first Vista, soon Vienna in 2009. Each Upgrade cycle they will find they need new hardware and little of their old software will work as well.

Evan;

Another way to think of it is like this, when you run Windows or for that matter Linux, as the Administrator account, (superuser or root) you can do anything, or have permission from the Operating System to do anything it can, including installing software. The problem is, it dosn't know who you are and a site on the internet trying to load a program (virus or trojan etc) onto your computer. Your browser at that point (running as administrator) has the same level of power as the administrator account.

Over 99% of windows users run their computers on the internet as the administrator. Its the opposite percentage with Linux.

Also I would point out that MS made the decision to incorporate Internet Exployer so tightly into the OS, for the express purpose of killing off Netscape. Many programs use IE to run in the background. While MS was wildly successful in using this to kill off Netscape, it proved to be a extra security problem for windows, that we are still suffering with today. Just by switching to Opera or Firefox in Windows, you will lower your risk of infection, not that those browsers don't have exploits as well. But as you say, most nasties are written for what most people use. But I would say this is not quite correct. it should be "most nasties are written for what most people use, and what it easiest to exploit." What is easiest to exploit is Windows being run as an administrator account with IE6 and outlook express.

I enjoy a lot the discussion level in this site but for the newbies this is my story:
I am using two SO, XP and Linux and like both of them (except WGA), but now with Feisty 7.04 , I was impressed, I really liked it- and I'd recommend you try it (you would not lose anything; since it's free – and you would gain a lot) obviously I am only suggesting it, after all, it's your money, it's your time and is your right, nobody should try to manipulate anybody - sorry, I am rather sensible about this point, therefore I am completely in disagree with MS’s politics (Nothing to do with XP.)
About Vista, I have a friend who got some terrible problems and he has come back to XP (he is trying now feisty too) for that, I wouldn’t recommend Vista to you (though if I was be Machiavelli-like I could recommend it, thus making you , like my friend, to open your eyes by yourself.) However, I am not Machiavelli, hence I recommend you get information because Vista –unlike Ubuntu- is not free and it will be very expensive. Obviously, it is just my humble opinion.

Ah! To Malroy and Richard gentlemen, thank for you kind commentaries.
Now something to freshen the air.
Three Linux engineers and three Microsoft engineers had arranged to travel by train to attend a congress. On the station, the three Microsoft engineers bought their respective tickets and looked on as the Linux engineers bought a single ticket -“How are three people traveling with a single ticket?!”, asked one Microsoft engineer. - “Watch and learn!” was the response of one of Linux's engineers. The Microsoft engineers went into the train and took their respective seats, and also saw as the engineers of Linux went all three into the toilet, closing the door behind them. Soon after the train took off, the man who checked the tickets came in, knocked on the toilet door and said: “ticket please”… The door opened the enough for an arm (with a ticket in hand) to go through, as it indeed did. The man put a hole in the ticket, and left. Seeing this, the employees of Microsoft decided that it was a brilliant idea, and therefore, to save some money, decided to copy the trick as they were coming back from the congress. During their return, the Microsoft engineers bought a single ticket, but became surprised when they saw that the Linux engineers did not buy any… - “Are you now going to travel without ANY tickets?”, asked one of the Microsoft engineers, perplexed. - “Watch and learn! ”, came back the answer. When the the train left the station, the Microsoft engineers entered one toilet, while the three Linux engineers went into another one. Quickly, one of the Linux engineers (the one with the old ticket that had a hole in it) left the toilet, went to the toilet where the employees of Microsoft were holed up, knocked on the door and said: “ticket, please”.

It is just for a laugh, without any hidden motive, ok?

Marco,

Feisty 7.04 is on my list to download. While I have not been a big Ubuntu fan, I must say it just keeps getting better. I do use Mepis which is based on Ubuntu. Also I use PCLinuxOS, which is very nice, you might try those two, they are based on KDE and all live cd's which can be run before you even install to the hard drive. This is a great way to see if all your hardware will work in that distro before installing. Also on my download list is MintKDE, another distro based on Ubuntu, but with most of the bells and whistles already added. Any of these distros are great for new users to try, and sure are priced nicely at free. Surf the interent virus free with linux. Nice joke, enjoyed.

chips b malroy
The fact that most users are logging in to Windows using admnistrative prevelidges is not a problem of the OS per se, but of user's perception, culture and level of knowledge.
I am using XP for 5 years now, doing all kinds of COM, .NET and Java development, besides the usual browsing and email reading, without an administrative account. Yes, linux users usually do not use administrative accounts, but that's because they usually come from a Unix cultural background and because they are Power users they know exatcly what they are doing. Most windows users on the other hand are casual novice users. The significant point here is that Windows does allow you to run your system and do even advanced operations without an Administrative account. You can also temporarily elevate your privileges easily using the "Run As" command, just as you would do in Unix based systems. The problem is that most casual windows users or even advaced users, don't know about it. Maybe Microsoft could have done a better job with security by simply educating users and enforcing even more the Least Previlege User Accounts Principle. Finnally,just to enforce my point, the very first thing most of my friends do, when they first install windows, is to go and give their account administrative privileges. It's really a cultural thing...

Evan;

You sound like a more advanced windows user. Understand that Windows has not setup limited accounts in XP or older systems. This is something you have to do after Windows is setup and running, from that standpoint, it is a problem of Microsoft that they allowed this to happen. I do believe that Vista may be the first MS OS to setup a limited user account by default out of the install? But since most users, from what I have read, turn it off because of the near constant nag messages, how good a system is this? Also, if you are running as a limited user you know that there is a legacy problem with old programs (and even some new ones) that require full administrator rights to run them. Yes, u can right click on the icon and select "run as administrator." But other things break as well because of this, which is perhaps part of the reason why some people have some many incompatable apps in Vista in addition to the other reasons.

I don't think the average windows user will go though the same degree of learning that you have shown to run as a limited user in Windows. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, it takes a high degree of knowledge to run as a user account in windows, more so than running a limited user account in Linux, as Linux was setup from the start to be able to do this easily.

Will MS ever fix this? They had the chance with Vista, and for the most part did not do it. I think the nag screens were put in it on purpose to get people to stop right away and turn off their UAC. Furthermore, I suggest that MS has moved into any taking over any area that shows profitability. The most profitable area that MS had not really moved into before Vista, is antivirus/antitrojan. Now they have Onecare, that you can pay for each year. Image, paying the company that allowed the exploits to exsist, to fix their own problems? Why fix the problem and make the limited user accounts easy to use, when you can just make more money by selling antivirus?

And you did notice Norton complaigning about being shut out of the kernel? Not that Norton is a great product anymore.

Anyway, thats why I say Linux is better on the internet. Yes you can almost secure windows by using limited user accounts, antivirus software, not using IE or Outlook. But not quite to the same degree as Linux, and not without a lot of pain and learning. Linux also has some other features in it that make its limited users accounts differnet in the way they work than the ones in windows. They are some other differences as well.

But I am glad to see that you are doing windows right and as safe as possible.

Another thing to think about, antivirus/trojans programs only respond. There has to first be a virus, and then there is a period of time that it runs before anyone detects it. Then there is a period of time before the antivirus companies make their udates to deal with it.

Which is better for security, the OS that has over 300,000 know viruses, trojans, adware, spyware, malware, keyloggers, scumware, etc, type of programs written for their exploits, or the one that dosn't have any viruses in the wild? Thats why I perfer to use Linux to surf the web and get my email. ActiveX is another security issue in Windows as well.

If you really want safe, download the free kanotix 2006 rc4 live cd. 100% safe surfing. This is the only live cd that will run in a computer without a hard drive in the system that I have seen. The nasties cannot find anything to write to. you can find it throught the links at distrowatch.com

Chips, regarding Mac vulnerabilities...

I use the iMac G5 for most of my daily computing activities. I've done so for the past two years and I love it. The graphical interface is clean and elegant. I also feel very safe. I've never had any viruses or spyware get onto my Mac.

Like I said, no Mac virus has ever been found in the wild.

I also use an XP laptop, an Ubuntu test platform, and my spanking brand-new Vista box that I built myself. A few years ago, my XP laptop got hosed by a virus or something and I had to reinstall XP. I don't feel safe when I use Windows.

evan wrote: "The fact that most users are logging in to Windows using admnistrative prevelidges is not a problem of the OS per se, but of user's perception, culture and level of knowledge."

Your observation is correct. However, it's a distinction without meaning. The fact is, most Windows users behave exactly as you described, and their attitude will not change. By adopting a different platform, with a different "culture," they will experience safer computing, if for no other reason than that Linux or Mac doesn't give you much choice. I'd have to do something really boneheaded to circumvent Linux or OS X security.

Evan;

A few more points on exploits in Nix OS systems. Yes, the exploits are there, but because of the limited user account setup very few are exploitable. The ones that are get fixed very quickly.

Most of these sources for Windows having less exploits than Linux or Mac, come from the "Get the Facts" crowd or Norton. "Get the Facts" being run by MS to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Always follow the money, this is the reason behind this so called data and MS sponsored tests being done, to make MS look good. Norton on the other hand, would be hard pressed to sell their product to Linux users, so they have a vested interest in telling people that Mac and Linux are not safe.

Richard;

Thanks I thought it was such, but did not want to say that which I was not sure of. I do know that Mac OSX is based on Darwin/BSD, so is a Nix at heart. Also BeOS was also a BSD derivative. BSD developed from AT&T Unix if I got that correctly. It acts and feels very much like Linux. However, BSD licensing is more like freeware, instead of the GPL that Linux uses. Therefore companies can take BSD open source, and closed source them and make they own software from them. Examples given, BeOS, and partly Mac OSX. It has been suggested that MS will make there own Nix OS in the future based on BSD, the same way that Mac has done it. MS did own its own Unix I think back in around 83, so they have some experience with it.

"MS did own its own Unix I think back in around 83, so they have some experience with it."

Ah, yes, Xenix. I remember working with Xenix in the 1980s when Microsoft owned it. (They transferred ownership of Xenix to SCO in 1987.) It was a pretty good platform. It's a pity MS lost interest in it.

"MS did own its own Unix I think back in around 83, so they have some experience with it."

Ah, yes, Xenix. I remember working with Xenix in the 1980s when Microsoft owned it. (They transferred ownership of Xenix to SCO in 1987.) It was a pretty good platform. It's a pity MS lost interest in it.

Xenix was something Microsoft got and then resold (and maybe worked on and got a lot of ideas from... methods and concepts!!!). And yes, it was speedy and very nice for its era.

I think Microsoft lost all interest in things Unix when Dave Cutler came on board to lead the NT development effort. I recall that he was quoted as "hating Unix". I also recall that about the same time, an Intel developer told us, in the context of using Unix for development and Windows for office paperwork, that "those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it poorly." I would add that "those who hate Unix are as likely to reinvent it poorly as those who don't understand it.

I don't know why Unix was the object of such hatred. I believe that Microsoft and NT would have greatly benefited if Dave Cutler's attitude had been "I really love a lot of Unix's capabilities, but I believe we can do more and do it better in NT."

For example, user accounts. Apparently, Vista has gone a long way from its predecessors, but that's like leaping an extra 500 feet across the Grand Canyon: it still falls severely short. User accounts should be embedded from the very first design session.

Many Linux distros let you boot directly into your user account and bypass login, letting it behave just as most Windows systems do. (Yes, it's not recommended, but it's there because that's what a lot of Windows users already expect). And yet, Linux is not letting you disable user accounts, it just streamlines your access to them.

But all that aside, Windows XP (either home or pro) with Service Pack 2, the personal firewall enabled, and Panda AntiVirus installed runs very nicely and speedily and makes a relatively bullet-proof system, especially when combined with a hardware firewall. (Norton and McAfee are horrible pieces of garbage, missing spyware and often deleting things they shouldn't. I have my picky complaints about Windows and Linux, but I reserve complete disdain for Norton and McAfee. But this is Microsoft Watch and not Garbage Watch, and so I won't get into those two any further.)

Brian;

you said; "But this is Microsoft Watch and not Garbage Watch, and so I won't get into those two any further." Since this article is about Vista, are you sure the comment about garbage watch might not apply? lol, But I agree with everything you have said.

Brian or Richard:

Didn't Caldera and or Novell also own Xenix unix at some point? Novell is still claiming to hold the patents on SCO Unix, that is part of the court case this is on going. I know that SCO bought out Caldera and still used the name for awhile.

'

Brian, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think of Norton and McAfee. :-)

Server 2003/IIS has surpassed Red Hat/LAMP for security, which should be final proof that there is nothing inherently magical about Unix's security over NT. Remember that NT is closely related to VMS, and many in the server world consider VMS to be superior to Unix.

The real problem is when you have hundreds of millions of users installing external software, often from shady places like p2p networks, all willing to click on whatever is necessary to get what they want.

This creates not only a security problem but an entire market for computer criminals.

That being said, Microsoft slacked off on some security issues, especially with browser and email attacks. They have really improved, so be sure you know what you are talking about before you jump on the anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux bandwagon.

David Connors :
Quote;
"Server 2003/IIS has surpassed Red Hat/LAMP for security, which should be final proof that there is nothing inherently magical about Unix's security over NT. Remember that NT is closely related to VMS, and many in the server world consider VMS to be superior to Unix."

1. did you copy that of the Get the Facts website or someplace? lol If you want to talk server software go talk on the red hat websites.

Quote;
"The real problem is when you have hundreds of millions of users installing external software, often from shady places like p2p networks, all willing to click on whatever is necessary to get what they want."

2. maybe, but look at it this way; Linux is all free software that comes with all free software that you can get through approved virus free repo's, or archives. The P2P sites mostly deal in Windows programs etc. How about all those freeware sites online with the little something extra added, trojans anyone? Open Source Linux does not have these problems you just described.

Quote;
This creates not only a security problem but an entire market for computer criminals.

3. Sure, but its a MS problem, and one of MS making. They are know convicted monopoly, that has been proven to overcharge for their operating systems. Dispute that they continue to overcharge. If MS wants to stop pirates they lower the price. I run Linux and will keep my old windows as I think Vista is just too expensive and I don't see any need for it. Also, my fastest computer runs nicely, but I know it will run like a dog with Vista on it.

Quote;
"That being said, Microsoft slacked off on some security issues, especially with browser and email attacks. They have really improved, so be sure you know what you are talking about before you jump on the anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux bandwagon."

4. Which is it? Did MS slack off on security issues or they really improved? Here's an oxymoron for you; windows security

David, I think you should read some of the post that I have been talking to Evan about. If anyone's on a bandwagon or is carrying a flag here, it might be you.

Chips sez:

1. did you copy that of the Get the Facts website or someplace? lol If you want to talk server software go talk on the red hat websites.

--

No it's based upon Secunia security advisories.
http://www.it-security-blog.com/operating-systems/redhat-enterprise-linux-4-vs-windows-server-2003/

Oh and having a Monopoly in the U.S. isn't illegal. It would be silly to punish a company for simply not having any competent competitors.

As for overcharing for their operating systems, you obviously have no idea as to how much work goes into an OS. Most software costs around $50, so for $100 you get a complete OS that takes far more than twice the manhours reqired to produce something like Turbotax or Quicken. Or is Intuit overcharging as well?

David, it's obvious that you have a deep affection for NT. I don't think it's well-deserved but that's your right. However, I should point out that Microsoft has been in constant firefighting mode for the past 7 years trying to beat down the number of vulnerabilities and security bugs in Win 2000/XP. As a senior software engineer who has worked on-site at Microsoft in Redmond, I can testify that their ability to manage software complexity is not as glorious as you may imagine. Their codebase is typical of any large software enterprise, ie, riddled with bugs, not thoroughly code-reviewed, shoddily organized, etc., etc.

With respect to Vista, do you suppose that their skills and methodologies have suddenly become spectacular and that they have a real handle on complexity this time? Not a chance. I'll give you my educated guess: by this time next year, Vista will be just as hard to secure as XP has been. Despite the broadly overhauled code in Vista and all of their security improvements, Microsoft will be treading water with respect to managing security problems.

David;

MS has been convicted of being a monopoly in one of the highest courts in the land, and made a deal with the DOJ, its public as well. The states of California and Iowa both have settled lawsuits that MS ended up paying millions for overcharging for windows operating systems. They may have been other states as well.
as myself. So our own gov thinks they overcharge us as well. MS is expected to take in 70 billion dollars this year, mostly all profit.

Yes, I think they do charge way to much for software. Expecially for warmed over 2003 server code with a heavy load of DRM and WGA thrown in, with some eye candy.

Chips, with regards to overcharging, just like the RIAA, Microsoft charges whatever the market will bear. This is proper behaviour in a free market.

If people are stupid enough to pay RIAA's prices for music CDs, then they deserve to be ripped off. (But music lovers are catching on, choosing to download MP3s rather than buying CDs.) If Windows users are stupid enough to pay $400 for MS Office or $240 for Vista Home Premium, then Microsoft deserves its obscene profits.

Consumer tip: OpenOffice.org offers essentially the same functionality as MS Office for FREE. Its user interface is not much different from earlier versions of Office. It will meet the needs of most Windows users. Unless you have special circumstances that require exact MS Office compliance, there is no need to spend that kind of money on Microsoft sofware.

Richard;
Nice tip on OpenOffice, I have been using it in both Linux and Windows. They updrade it often, and unlike MS Office, they don't break or change formats to save files. I also use Abiword in both Linux and Windows, its not as powerful, but it great for very old computers and fine to just write a letter.

My point about MS overcharging on for Windows, is valad, a lot of us cannot afford it. Hey, I got the family car up on blocks waiting for parts and repairs, hard to put food on the table for 3 wifes and 12 kids, and the rent payment is several months overdue, why would I buy Vista? Just kidding.

Sure, they are lots of people who pirate mp3's and Vista as well. I don't listen to much music and have cd's, and I am not going pirate Vista. Not that I have that much moral outrage at those who do pirate Vista. It would be more of a question of is it worth using? My answer is even free I would not use it. Plus Linux is free and lets me be a 100% legal clean user.

It is interesting to watch so many people blindly support the world's richest people. Bill Gates, is the worlds richest man, making King Midas and the Roman General Crassius look like a paupers. Not that this makes him an evil person, but if you look back at the business practices of MS, who else was at the helm? Also speaking of the RIAA, one of their main clients is Time-Warner (music,films, TV), they have done a fine job using CNN to brainwash the people about IP. I maintain that if these products were priced fairly people would buy them.

For some I think they are just worried that Linux or the Mac will take over, and they are afriad they may not be able to learn Linux anymore. For you folks, fear not, MS will be around for a very long time. As long as they can squeeze out a few dollars out of people like those. To those who fear, I suggest that the learning Curve is higher to use Vista, going from XP, than it might be moving to a newbie friendly Linux distro. Also, please realize that Linux is an OS for those of us who cannot afford MS, or just want something better.

I watched an old Erryol Flynn movie the other day, titled; "The Adventures of Robin Hood."

Some of you may recall, in the movie Robin Hood, Stoal from the rich and gave to the poor?

From a few posters here, I could see their would be a lot of folks rooting for Prince John and the Shieff of Nottingham.

Just seems to tie up with the MS/Bill Gates/Riaa discussion. Has our view of things become so twisted in this world that we cannot see that MS is even monopoly and they have bought the US government as well?

Dear David Connors, your "get the facts right link" is not based on Secunia data, but rather on manipulated Secunia data.

When the link you cite says RH is more vulnerable than 2003 Server they quote the "remote" vs "local" exploits. When they should actually be quoting the "Criticality" data. Graphs they just happened to have left out. If you look at those RedHat has 1% Extremely critical while Server 2003 has 6% Extremely critical. Looks like they got the facts wrong.

More so when we look at the patched vs unpatched vulnerabilities it doesn't look good for Windows Server 2003. Red Hat has 100% vendor patches for its vulnerabilities. Windows 2003 server has only patched 90% of its vulnerabilities, 1% having a workaround, 2% having a partial fix and 8% being unpatched (somehow this adds to 101%, must be some rounding error in the graph).

At this rate I can say Red Hat can have ten times more vulnerabilities. As long as they're patched it really doesn't really matter does it? Besides that I'm hard pressed to believe Microsoft's development process is so radically different from others that it produces such a small amount of vulnerabilities. My take is that they probably have as much (maybe even more) than Red Hat. We just don't know about them. With such and outstanding number of unpatched vulnerabilities this is truly troublesome.

For quick reference:

Red Hat ES4

secunia dot com/product/4668/?task=statistics

Windows Server 2003 Standard

secunia dot com/product/1173/?task=statistics

Gerardo, I have no question in my mind that Windows (including XP and Vista) has many, many vulnerabilities that have not yet been discovered. Remember, I am intimately familiar with Microsoft's development procedures and I've seen their codebase. Putting analysts' studies aside, I am positive that Vista (including the upcoming Longhorn server) has more security holes than does Red Hat.

Look at it this way: Vista has been majorly overhauled with millions of lines of new code. As good as Microsoft are, even they can't test every execution pathway in their code. So lurking within Vista's codebase are numerous vulnerabilities that MS can't even begin to guess at. It will take at least a couple of Service Packs before Vista's promise of greater security is truly realized.

And you can take this to the bank.

Richard, I'm not familiar with Microsoft's development procedures, but as an external observer and developer I get the impression their code is tightly coupled. Leading to difficulties fixing bugs as a small change in one module can (and actually does) affect others. This leads to slow response to security issues or none at all if they can get their way with things. I'm still surprised by the fact that Microsoft argued "impact" as an excuse for the animated cursor fix. How can an issue with a cursor affect other services in an OS beyond the GUI? Only in the Windows world is such a thing not only tolerated, but actually welcomed as a very valid excuse.

Richard,

Yes, perhaps in a years time there will be more security issues along the same lines as XP, good point you made.

Must wonder if the DRM and advanced WGA mechanisms that Microsoft has put in place in Windows Vista, are not in themselves subject to exploits down the road? Since DRM and WGA are tools to cripple or stop you from doing something in Vista, would it not be reasonable to assume that viruses/Trojans will be written to exploit the DRM and WGA mechanisms, causing even more problems that have not existed in previous Windows?

To the clear ideas told here I can add this other:
Do you REALLY think that after 5 years, thousands of employees and billions of dollars is it possible get such a terrible product?
There are 2 possible answers :

1-No, then you have to fire a lot people (employees and managers ) because Linux (for example), with a lot LESS people (and money- if any) gets better results (value for money.)

2-Yes, here we could speak about complexities (vista getting to the maximum level of complexity in this case- possibly that's why Vista is exploding and that's why Ms might implode), etc. I think, the whole thing is possible (we all know truth is comes in the sum grays- not all is black or white), However, have a doubt (security-wise): Does Ms really want to be completely safe? This question arises because of something Ballmer said, it meant that the ONLY answer (the last and only resort) to piracy and hackers was WGA.

So, therefore, one could deduce that if their updates are not needed any longer, and we don't have to go to their web any longer (thus avoiding the WGA); how could they keep tabs on us? This could perhaps explain many things about the safety (or rather, the lack of it) of the OS, especially Vista.

I mean; Is MS using to "the bad boys" to its benefit?

Marco,

Marco,

Think you are at the heart of the matter .

So why the bad OS?

MS never intended for XP to turn out this well. After all, XP is a problem for Vista adoption. Why get Vista since XP works fairly well? While one could ague that 2000 is the best windows version, XP would probably be the accepted answer. MS took a lot of heat after the blaster worm made its debut. The media and the government (to their credit) jumped on the dismal security features of windows at the point, and MS was almost forced to make SP2. Its probably about the only reason that XP ended up being one of the best, if not the best, windows version ever.

Now XP is a major problem for Vista adoption, because they made it a little too good. Here lies the problem for a commercial OS, “if you make it too good, why will we need to spend money on another OS?” So the point is, if they is not something that the users want in the next OS, most people will not buy it, unless of course, it comes preloaded and you don't have a choice. As most people just walk into a store to buy there computers, chances are, all they will see is computers with Vista on them.

Take for example, if Vista had fixed the UAC and properly protected Vista, would MS be able to sell as many OneCare products?

The DRM is very important to MS plans. As this will actually give them control over a lot of hardware by making at least the video and sound drivers made include DRM hardwired into them. If nothing else, MS is hoping to kill off Linux and all other competing Operating Systems on the IBM compatible PC's, by making it next to impossible to write device drivers in these new DRM video and sound hardware. As part of the agreement to embed the DRM into video and sound chips, is to license the DRM from the media companies, which in turn will not allow them to open any specifications to Linux to make an open source drivers for these devices. The DRM is also very important down the road when it is actually turned on, that would be probably when VISTA/VIENNA with embedded DRM is finally taken over the market share. Again, DRM is a scheme no to stop pirates, but rather to sell the same media several times.

I enjoy a lot your commentaries Chips.

Defective by Design.

If you fix all the problems in an OS like windows, who needs to buy the next one. After all, have can you improve on a perfect product? Not saying XP is a near perfect product, but its certainly one of MS best.

There are no real innovations in Vista. Eve Candy is not an innovation. DRM in not an innovation.

MS has always left some broken to be "fixed" in the next OS. Its one of the ways it sells the next OS. Or promising to fix the file structure, is another. Not that this would be a major innovation, as Linux and most modern OS'es, do not need to defrag.

Nice flame wars :)

For what it's worth... I've installed Windows Vista on a 2 year old Dell Precision laptop. I can honestly say that Windows Vista is the best operating system Microsoft has released to date.

Also, I installed Windows Vista on my new 24" iMac using Bootcamp 1.2. Windows Vista, hands down, runs faster than OS X Tiger. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

This is coming from a huge Apple fan that runs a 24" iMac, Mac Mini, and 12" iBook.

I am convinced that the public has been influenced by an uneducated media regarding Windows Vista. Blogs are not valid sources of information or facts.

Do your own research. Use your own brain.

For what it's worth... I've installed Windows Vista on a 2 year old Dell Precision laptop. I can honestly say that Windows Vista is the best operating system Microsoft has released to date.

Also, I installed Windows Vista on my new 24" iMac using Bootcamp 1.2. Windows Vista, hands down, runs faster than OS X Tiger. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

This is coming from a huge Apple fan that runs a 24" iMac, Mac Mini, and 12" iBook.

I am convinced that the public has been influenced by an uneducated media regarding Windows Vista. Blogs are not valid sources of information or facts.

Do your own research. Use your own brain.

For what it's worth... I've installed Windows Vista on a 2 year old Dell Precision laptop. I can honestly say that Windows Vista is the best operating system Microsoft has released to date.

Also, I installed Windows Vista on my new 24" iMac using Bootcamp 1.2. Windows Vista, hands down, runs faster than OS X Tiger. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

This is coming from a huge Apple fan that runs a 24" iMac, Mac Mini, and 12" iBook.

I am convinced that the public has been influenced by an uneducated media regarding Windows Vista. Blogs are not valid sources of information or facts.

Do your own research. Use your own brain.

For what it's worth... I've installed Windows Vista on a 2 year old Dell Precision laptop. I can honestly say that Windows Vista is the best operating system Microsoft has released to date.

Also, I installed Windows Vista on my new 24" iMac using Bootcamp 1.2. Windows Vista, hands down, runs faster than OS X Tiger. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

This is coming from a huge Apple fan that runs a 24" iMac, Mac Mini, and 12" iBook.

I am convinced that the public has been influenced by an uneducated media regarding Windows Vista. Blogs are not valid sources of information or facts.

Do your own research. Use your own brain.