[XunknownX]

I love Microsoft's Windows XP. Nearly 2 years after it's initial release here we are constantly downloading patch after patch after patch. If you have the original XP Pro without SP1, then after installation your looking at nearly 70 megs of patches...and they keep piling on more. I was notified of 4 more today. Wonderful. By the time they get all the patches out of their system, it will be time for there next OS...MS Longhorn. Then the process starts all over again.

MS's patches own you....

[ZedBias]

I just read somewhere that Windows XP was realeased with 63,500 known bugs! Surely that cant be right. Or can it??

I got the link if any one wants a lil read??

[XunknownX]

Only 63,500?!?! I expected more then that. Ok, MS is cool in my books now.

[UnseenMenace]

My signature seems less ironic and more appropiate each day

[ZedBias]

Originally posted by XunknownX
Only 63,500?!?! I expected more then that. Ok, MS is cool in my books now.

Just makes me wonder if theres 63,500 KNOWN bugs how many UNKNOWN there might be??

[XunknownX]

That's it, I'm suing microsoft for providing me with a faulty OS. I've lost many personal files that can never be replaced due to there security issues. And they owe me for all my pain and suffering. Bill Gates, get that check book out because you owe me!!!

[shiyan]

hehehe.... let's all go use windows 3.1 lol!

[Deathknight]

Isn't progress wonderful?

[mbentley]

as they say in computer software when it is finally released, the software isn't finished, it's just shipped.

[shiyan]

do they ship them out while working on patches for known issues or do they ship them out with few known problems and start patching when the problems get reported?

[Deathknight]

Software gets released all the time with known issues. There is just alot more to go wrong with windows and MS obviously has no qualms making you download 20 million updates.

[james.miller]

I've never patched my winxp installs once. norton and zonealarm are all i use. never been hacked or got a virus, go figure lol

[shiyan]

I often wonder whether those patches are of any use really, or just fix obscure security issues that regular users never come across. Sometimes I think my XP get more messed up because of the updates.

[UnseenMenace]

Shipping products though with known problems does make me wonder though what success someone would have in asking for a refund...
If someone brought a new car and it has known defects you would legaly be able to ask for a replacemement or a refund even if you had driven the vehicle for a while

[Kendan]

Originally posted by shiyan
I often wonder whether those patches are of any use really, or just fix obscure security issues that regular users never come across. Sometimes I think my XP get more messed up because of the updates.

One word!


Blaster

[Arkaine23]

Originally posted by UnseenMenace
Shipping products though with known problems does make me wonder though what success someone would have in asking for a refund...
If someone brought a new car and it has known defects you would legaly be able to ask for a replacemement or a refund even if you had driven the vehicle for a while

But providing free patches is basically like recalling the vehicle and replacing the broken stuff for no cost. I bet they even provide CD's of patches and service packs for those weho have no internet connection, for the bare minimum of cost of the shipping.

[Oni]

Originally posted by UnseenMenace
My signature seems less ironic and more appropiate each day

"Windows didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development."

I liked the one I had better:

You ever see those guys who wear the 'I Love Linux' t-shirts? That does more damage to the OS than a million Windows bluescreens!

[zachj]

I think we're forgetting that all OSs have security flaws, including the fabulously stable and virus-free OSX. Single User Mode might be useful, but unless you know you need it, you don't, and for those that have no idea it'ss even there, it represents a security risk, especially if their computer is in a "public" place. Microsoft does release a lot of patches . . . too many, in my opinion. Yet some of this can't be blamed solely on them. Hackers hack Windows because 90% of people use it. That makes them a BIG and EASY target, considering the average computer user knows nothing of windows update or virii . . . If Linux were to replace Windows as the OS of choice, I imagine that it would require more frequent updates than it has now (in so much as it "has" them already, since they don't exactly "patch" Linux). Sure, Apple releases a patch/update no more frequently than once a month, and that makes MS look terrible, but look at how many people are actively trying to hack or infect OSX . . . they simply don't have the reason to fix something wrong . . . MS is trying to better its image (and deflect a new lawsuit, which I hope they win . . . I'm a Microsoft fan, personally), but releasing much-needed (sometimes) patches only monthly to save face is a worse idea. I agree that shipping a product with known flaws is a big no-no, but since everyone does it, why should Microsoft be attacked for it?

Z

[shiyan]

I like MS actually. Without MS computing would require a lot more thought lol.

but seriously, I do like MS.

[KraziKid]

Originally posted by zachj
I think we're forgetting that all OSs have security flaws, including the fabulously stable and virus-free OSX. Single User Mode might be useful, but unless you know you need it, you don't, and for those that have no idea it'ss even there, it represents a security risk, especially if their computer is in a "public" place. Microsoft does release a lot of patches . . . too many, in my opinion. Yet some of this can't be blamed solely on them. Hackers hack Windows because 90% of people use it. That makes them a BIG and EASY target, considering the average computer user knows nothing of windows update or virii . . . If Linux were to replace Windows as the OS of choice, I imagine that it would require more frequent updates than it has now (in so much as it "has" them already, since they don't exactly "patch" Linux). Sure, Apple releases a patch/update no more frequently than once a month, and that makes MS look terrible, but look at how many people are actively trying to hack or infect OSX . . . they simply don't have the reason to fix something wrong . . . MS is trying to better its image (and deflect a new lawsuit, which I hope they win . . . I'm a Microsoft fan, personally), but releasing much-needed (sometimes) patches only monthly to save face is a worse idea. I agree that shipping a product with known flaws is a big no-no, but since everyone does it, why should Microsoft be attacked for it?

Z

I agree with you wholeheartidly. People who use alternate OSes and claim they are more secure, don't understand anything significant in the computer world. They are secure by obscurity, which isn't secure at all. Cracker's aren't stupid people. They know that if they want to get their point across, they affect 90 % of the market share, not 10 percent. I can write a fairly simple program that will root a Linux box, and then format the drive if I like, and I can make a bet that the whole it uses won't be patched for months. But, if I write a program on Windows that gives me SYSTEM access, Microsoft will have a patch for it within 2 weeks. The hole used for Blaster was patched two months in advance, and the hole used by Slammer was patched around 4-6 months in advance. If you are complaining about the fact that you need to take 5 minutes out of your week to keep your system secure, I say Microsoft should make updates mandatory. Microsoft's image get's tainted by stupid users. I have never been infected with a worm or trojan simply because I know how to patch my system, run an antivirus, have a firewall (which is running Windows Server 2003, and it is more secure than when I was using Linux + iptables), and I know safe computing practices. Now you're going to say IE has holes. How many holes have been patched in gecko? Gecko is the engine used by most other browsers (Mozilla, Netscape, Firebird, etc...). There are just as many, if not more unpatched holes for Gecko that there are for IE's engine. Please, stop claiming to be secure by obscurity.