| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 71857 | 2006-08-19 15:48:00 | Vista Joins MS Patch Treadmill | SurferJoe46 (51) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 479522 | 2006-08-19 15:48:00 | ....again from my Saturday morning e-mail bag: Ain't it just more kharma that M$ (see:MrBillKnows concerning the efficacy of/and/or about Windows NEW unfettered supplication to the ethergods) that there's trouble in Richmond...and all this whilst Mr.Bill is going to take a sabbatical? Read the article here: www.theregister.co.uk Will Mr. Bill have anything to come home to after his "vacation"? Is Mr. Bill leaving or jumping off a sinker? Is Mr. Bill in carnal knowledge of something fishy at M$? Will Mr. & Mrs. Bill have to resort to picking aluminum cans outta dumpsters for food and shelter? [OK...so the first link was a phoney...but I liked it anyway] |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 479523 | 2006-08-19 22:35:00 | Heya Joe, I think you have missed out something here: (see:MrBillKnows The URL is in need of a .com or whatever Cheers :) |
Renmoo (66) | ||
| 479524 | 2006-08-19 22:41:00 | ...check the last line on my post...the first was a ....what? | SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 479525 | 2006-08-20 04:18:00 | I think that M$ missed an ideal opertunity with Vista to go back to the beginning and build the OS from scratch rather than another bloatware ontop of WinXP and bloatware ontop on Win2K etc. They could posiibly gotten the security rite this time.. But hey building eye candy ontop of an older OS is far more cost efective... (more profits) | paulw (1826) | ||
| 479526 | 2006-08-20 04:31:00 | Well yes, perhaps in long run such a move would be effective. However removing the entire backwards compatability required by millions of companies around the world would be the stupidist buisness decsion ever. Complaining on a forum is going to be enough for Microsoft to put billions and billions of dollars of revenue at risk. If you really see Windows as such a big problem choose another OS, or learn how to create your own. And don't dismiss Vista as merely eye candy, a lot of under-the-hood changes have been made. |
imarubberducky (7230) | ||
| 479527 | 2006-08-20 04:37:00 | Well yes, perhaps in long run such a move would be effective. However removing the entire backwards compatability required by millions of companies around the world would be the stupidist buisness decsion ever. MS will continue to suck untill they take this step, Its the chain that has been dragging down the PC platform for many years. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 479528 | 2006-08-20 04:45:00 | I think its pretty impossible to make a OS or any program without any flaw.Humans aren't perfect.Even the most safest browser opera,firefox needs to be patched | Ninjabear (2948) | ||
| 479529 | 2006-08-20 04:56:00 | I think its pretty impossible to make a OS or any program without any flaw.Humans aren't perfect.Even the most safest browser opera,firefox needs to be patchedTrue, but if you look at MS history you would see they have just been throwing stuff on top of bad code since Windows 3.1 (or earlier) | Myth (110) | ||
| 479530 | 2006-08-20 05:00:00 | They have started again . Several times . For Windows NT they brought in a good designer from DEC, who knew about security . Unfortunately, the management wouldn't accept that you could have security, lots of "features", and speed all at the same time . For Windows XP, they were boasting about the 40 million lines of new code in it . A well accepted error rate is 1 error in 20 lines of code when the writer has "finished" with it . 80% of these errors can be detected by a software review, and testing . The users find the rest, eventually . It takes a very long (infinite?) time for all the bugs to be found in an OS . Does anyone think XP is error free yet? There's a lot of new code in Vista . :D The way mainframe OSs have become very reliable is not by rewriting the code from scratch . What works is a process of gradual improvement . |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 479531 | 2006-08-20 05:28:00 | research.microsoft.com | pctek (84) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||