god it was soooo funny when Apple finally had a virus and they where freaking out since they didnt know how to stop it so fast. Reason I think the Droid is better then the Iphone since it allows more open source items then apple and has a way better cam and video quality lol. Open source isnt always a bad thing just a lil more monitoring is done
Actually, there is something I should point out about the number of bugs/vulnerabilities in popular software. Consumers (including businesses - perhaps especially businesses) expect software to be decently secure and bug-free, or they may drop it and find a competitor - or at least they can more easily be scared away from it. However, writing secure, non-buggy software is, again, difficult. If you make it absolutely NASA-standard bulletproof, you are going to take a long time to release anything. By the time you're done, your competitors will have a lot more features and you will start to look antiquated. Now, sure, there'll be a niche audience who finds that security very useful, and you might find quite a few fans there. Most of your customers, however, will think to themselves something like: "Well, do I really need all that extra security? That other program does do quite a lot more, even if it has a few problems." So, I would venture that there's a balance between perfect code and developing your product's features fast enough to stay competitive. Good development methodologies can let you get a bit of both, but when you push things to extremes there's always going to be a trade-off.
Hello, Skype. Security vulnerabilities for IM applications haven't even appeared on my radar since ICQ. Then Skype comes along and blows the roof off the well of terrible.
Skype has its own messenging protocol. My point was only to find a level playing field in which I could compare Microsoft's prowess to competitor's. Not to discuss which IM is the best.
I agree with you. The problem is thus : Microsoft is a monopoly. The only competitor to Windows are previous versions of Windows. They have no need to be competitive, and that is the root of all Microsoft products' shoddiness.
I agree... I like Apple and I am happy with my Macbook, but I really prefer other phones and mp3 players.
lollerskates If Microsoft was a monopoly, not being competitive also gives them the option to take their time and do things right. However, they do have competition in the form of OS X and Linux primarily, and potentially something from Google in the future. Few people run OS X because it costs you an arm and a leg, and few people run Linux because it's an almighty pain in the arse to work in. But if MS didn't keep on top of Windows, it'd give people a reason to switch to one of the others. Mainly Linux, I suspect, since as soon as hackers started targetting OS X, users will discover it's got more security holes than a sieve. There's competition for them in their other arenas as well. Office suites in the form of OpenOffice, hardware in the form of Logitech and other specialist brands, consoles in the form of Nintendo and Sony. MS software is generally quite robust, even in areas where it's a choice between freeware and freeware such as internet apps.
If OS X got more hacker attention, I suspect Apple should be capable of nailing down the hatches similarly to what you saw in Windows after about 2000. It is perhaps true that they don't take security as seriously at the moment (recalling an article that was basically a bunch of "which is more secure" snippets from security experts - Apple takes a fair while longer to patch holes, but they still don't get a lot of infections), especially when it comes to things like Safari and QuickTime.
Linux and OS X are both Unix based operating systems. Linux is more of a "build your own" type environment where the OS is bare and you have to either grab programs others have made or write your own most of the time to populate it with "common" features a Windows user is used to. It's very common on web servers and increasingly common on netbooks, but a lot of desktops are going to be MS/Apple since thats what companies make their games and software for. Wikipedia lists it at 60% of the web server market, 12% of the server market in general, and ~1-2% of the desktop market for 2008. As to the prior comment Apple is a hardware company for the millionth time... there are alternative hardware setups that cost less and the OS X itself cost me a substantial $30 to upgrade (which was a seamless 20minutes and a single reboot before the machine came out perfect with 0 required interaction or backing up). Most people will still use Windows, and until Unix-like OS's start reaching at least a plurality or more probably a majority, it's just not likely that people will attempt to heavy virus attacks on them, but I still believe their permission setups would still be more stable and stronger than Windows. The easiest way into a Unix system is still physical access. (Apple computers can bypass a non-encrypted account password just by booting to the OS and reseting the pw for instance).
Apparently you do know more that the US department of justice and US judges. I suggest you do some research.
Linux OS usually comes into the form of 'distributions'. They are packs of OS + programs already made you can just download, and that give you an ensemble ready to run. The major point that makes the difference between Linux and Windows or OS X, is that no only is the OS free of charge, but it is open (open-source). That means that you have free access to the source code that was used to produce the program. You are free to access it, modify it, distribute your modifications, build your own modified/extended OS or programs, etc ... If some hardware peripheral doesn't support linux, you can write the driver yourself. If you find a bug, you can correct it yourself. If you find something lacking, you can write it yourself. If a new computer, phone, game console or any other electronic appliance that has a CPU comes out, you can port Linux to run on it yourself. The OS is openly yours. Not a sealed and obscured black-box like windows or OS X.
not sure why you are spliting hairs or maybe im just misreading the way you post as argumenative instead of supplementary... The point is that Windows is the most used, least customizable, most vulnerable and most attacked with Linux being the opposite of all of those and Apple's OS X being in the middle (I would argue much further on the Linux side than halfway). Most people who use Windows bash it and most people who use OS X only complain about having to load Windows on a 2nd partition to run select applications. Linux is an affordable alternative source for highly adapatable workspaces, but games typically require a port to run as they are usually designed for Windows (with a growing setup of OS X supported titles)
Everything you said is correct and well-formulated, I just wanted to add details to the one aspect I find crucial between the different OSes.
The hardware is what Apple makes their money on... they don't allow OS X to be run on any hardware other than their own (you can break it but it's probably illegal), and that's mostly because it wouldn't be profitable to produce OS X if they did. That makes it difficult to directly compare the costs of OS X and Windows or Linux, because the latter two aren't cross-subsidised. He's right, though. Microsoft may have a numbers monopoly (~90% of the worldwide desktop OS market if I recall) but Apple and Linux are real competitors and could overtake it if they did nothing. No lead is insurmountable unless you have no competition at all. To be fair, you can write drivers for unsupported hardware for Windows and probably OS X as well. The original vendors have to make it work with the system somehow.
Alright, I gave you a lead but you didn't care enough to follow it. The US justice established as findings of law at the Microsoft trial that : _Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market _Microsoft has abused that monopoly in order to gain other monopolies. They were found guilty for the latter, which is illegal practice. They did appeal the first trial, and were found guilty in appeal too. If you continue your denial of reality, your revisionism, I'm afraid that discussing this subject is totally void of interest. Microsoft has a monopoly. Period. Let me cast a little light on your ignorance of reality. There is no competition on the PC OS market. The terms of Windows licencing for PC makers state that Microsoft has to be paid for every PC manufactured and sold, REGARDLESS IF IT SHIPS WITH WINDOWS OR NOT. There is not a definite,fixed price for Windows for PC maker. If one maker displeases Microsoft, they will have to pay a higher price than other more servile PC makers for the privilege of putting windows on their PC. The licence terms for Windows for PC makers FORBID THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER OS THAN WINDOWS ON THE HARD DISK when the PC is sold. Everything I just said was established in court, amongst many other disgusting and/or illegal Microsoft business practices, lies, deceptions, etc ... If a PC maker doesn't like the terms of Windows licencing, they can just go buy it from ... no one else. And see if they can survive without selling windows PC. And incidentally, you understand why so many PC makers make it so difficult for customers who want a refund for windows. The ones that refuse the Microsoft licence at first boot and wipe the hard drive to install whatever they want. Since the PC maker is paying Microsoft no matter what, a generalization of such customer behaviour would cost them dearly.
I think you're mis-characterizing the Anti-trust case against MS and its results. While, through the course of US vs MS, a case that was based upon the inclusion of a web browser with the OS, did lead to an initial ruling of monopoly and violation of anti-trust laws, the ruling was overturned on appeal due to procedural and ethical violations by the ruling judge in the case. Some important notes are that the finding of law was actually never reversed, meaning that on the books there is still an anti-trust ruling here, however, since the judge overstepped his bounds in the case (along with some ethics violations) the ruling was overturned. So yes, Saffaya is correct in saying that the US Judicial system has ruled MS a monopoly, however since the case wasn't really about that, the case itself was settled through agreements between the DoJ and MS. Basically, MS is still free to include 'features' in its OS, as long as their API is shared. Personally I have never understood MS bashing. TBH, we wouldn't be where we are today without the innovations that MS brought to the market. And, while MS is certainly a monolithinc entity (dare we say monopoly), there is no evidence anywhere that they are trying to rule the word, so to speak, one PC at a time. I think Most economists would agree that garnering too much more market share (i.e. taking it from Linux, OSX,etc) would actually be a detriment to MS profitability. And when it comes down to it, they are trying to make a profit.