http://blogs.technet.com/msrc

Microsoft are going to release an out of band patch via MicrosoftUpdate this week.

A Windows Exploit turns into why Mac OSX, Linux etc. is better than Windows...Didn't see that coming. :/

On the issue at hand; has anyone even heard about a friend/colleague affected by the exploit? Not to slide it under a rug or anything but it sure seems like a 'mountain out of a mole-hill" deal. Furthermore from past situations, though MS seems to take a while with patches regardless of exploits being severe or not, at least they do release out of cycle patches eventually if necessary. Nice of this firm to push a patch but I'd rather have a MS patch mess up my PC than a 3rd party so I'll wait for April 10 either way.

Nope, never.

I actually can't recall ever seeing any exploits affect anyone when the system was behind a firewall.

look here you ****ing a******, MAc OSX and your "linux" has more exploits than Windows OS, but Windows OS has the critical ones, i do programs and i have had this problem before, its because you type fast and how many times do i have to say that windows owes more than 80% of the world market you stupid idiot, so hackers and crackers are willing to **** windows just because of that you ****ing retard, plus i havent had any problems since i started using windows, you ****ing stupid retard i hate you so ****ing much, I HATE LINUX USERS YOU ****ING ****ERS, AT LEAST MAC OSX HAS A MORE FRIENDLY GUI

Has Linux taken over yet?

...nope and never will...

"...nope and never will..."

That's what Netscape answered in 1996 when asked "Will Internet Explorer take over?"

Netscape never answered. Hell, they never saw the question coming. They miscommunicated, mismanaged, and misfired their way to the grave. The only question any of us had at the time was which competing browser would be blamed for the suicide.

/sorry, those were bad days I'd rather forget.

Thanks for bringing that up again...jerk :p

First step: Microsoft should reduce by billions the lines of useless code that Windows actually has to make the OS just do the basic: Allow you to operate the computer, as easy and fast as posible. Do you want to build other software? Great, do it, but sell them appart. I don't want to pay a fortune for a bloated crap

Problem with getting rid of old code is the following.

We won't be able to use our older software. Windows is as bloated as OS X is, costs exactly the same, and is about the same quality I feel.

Lets be honest OS X patches alot of bugs, go look at how many sub-versions have been released and how many bugs that has patched. Plus the fact the bugs and features that will be fixed in the next major release, which isn't free. At least with Windows you don't gota pay for Service Packs which is basicly what the next release of OS X is.

You are right about the compatibility problems stripping code, and is the price to pay. Would you tell me one single 16bit program you still use and does not have a replacement in 32bits?
But, you are not right about OS X. You can install Tiger today in a 1999 iMac and it will work as a charm. That is awesome for a "small" company (comparing against Microsoft).
I don't feel Mac OS bloated at all, it has its problems though, and they're patched on time.

And to finish with this, Mac OS upgrade cost $80, the full version, and ANY user could upgrade it.
With Vista, you need to put an arm and leg to buy it ($299 Ultimate or $199 for the renamed Pro edition), and later upgrade your computer if you want to try any new "feature" and still avoid installing a posible malformed animated cursor... Old bug reclycled.
Vista should not be recommended to anyone. That's why MS is pushing to impose it forcing builders to sell computers only with Vista preinstalled (Dell, HP, etc). Microsoft use their resources for THAT instead build a good OS. But Vista is the worst OS since a long time (Windows ME anyone?), this time competition have a chance, let's see what happen now...

"Would you tell me one single 16bit program you still use and does not have a replacement in 32bits?"

Jezzball (the original, all the new ones suck...)

Vista Ultimate is vastly superior to Mac OS X Tiger in terms of security, reliability and speed and is well worth the extra cost. Vista Ultimate has complete hard disk encryption in the form of Bitlocker. It has Patchguard in the 64-bit version that crashes the computer if a program tries to modify the kernel (no program should be doing this anyways despite what the folks at Symantec and Mcafee are claiming). Vista is also light years ahead of Tiger in gaming performance. With DirectX 10 you get the most realistic graphics possible on games with high end graphics cards like the Nvidia GeForce 8800 series GPUs. Tiger only supports 3D graphics equivalent to DirectX 9 and earlier when it comes to gaming.

The hardware upgrades that Vista demands were going to have to happen sooner or later. You can't expect to be able to use that old AMD Athlon XP or Intel Pentium 3 processor with 256MB of RAM forever. As for your comparison to Windows ME, at least Vista runs without crashing for the vast majority of users (this applies to gamers as well as people who just do basic word processing). Windows ME on the other hand often crashed with a BSOD before it even finished installing.

It will be interesting to see if Leopard brings Mac OS X back up to par with Windows though.

Oh no, Vista is *not* superior in security nor reliability nor speed:
* Bitlocker is a(nother) photocopied feature from Mac OS included with Panther in 2003 (Mac OS 10.3). AND Firevault was included in the STANDARD version of Mac os, not the "give me more money" edition. Apple never used it as marketing argument, as they actually MAKE improvements on every OS release.
* Patchguard is a nice try to circunvent the flawed windows security model, but you cannot compare it with the serious and robust Unix behind Mac OS. By the way, you said that Vista actually *crashes* the computer if a program tries to modify the kernel? That's what I call a professional solution! RFLOL!
* Gaming performance, is not a problem for Mac OS, OpenGL has nothing to envy to DirectX. Though, you have a point here, but for another reason: Marketing: 1/10 or 1/20 games are released for Mac OS, and I don't expect it to change. On the other hand, Directx 10 is unncecesary and nothing that it shouldn't be labeled Directx 9.0D or 9.1. But, MS needs to sell Vista and this kind of change move the masses and that's why they will not release DirectX 10 for XP. Anyway, there is no games now that use it, right? so, who cares?
Microsoft did not learn to make a UI consistent. Apple UI is not only consistent but intuitive, far ahead!

I could write a whole week comparing Apple and Microsoft OSs, as I know them very well but to resume: Microsoft is ahead in Marketing and sales, only.

I was going to write a rebuttal to 'smarterthanyou', but you did such a good job I just thought I'd second your post.

Spot on.

Descent? :)

Filevault does not encrypt the entire disk like Bitlocker does. It only encrypts your home directory. Bitlocker encrypts everything except for the very small amount of files Windows needs to boot up. This means that nearly all of the operating system as well as your user data is encrypted.

As for patchguard, by giving a BSOD and shutting down Windows (in effect crashing the system) this helps to prevent rootkits from doing any damage to your personal data.

Windows Vista is also the first OS to have a hybrid sleep feature that combines instant resume from suspend with hibernation in case your battery should run out.

The NTFS file system is also much faster than Apple's proprietary Mac OS X filesystem and has the same level of security and reliability.

If Mac OS is really that much better than Windows then Mac OS would be on 95% of computers instead of Windows. Unix is just as susceptible to viruses as Windows Vista and previous versions of Windows NT.

Ding! Beat me to it floodland. Count me in third.

"Microsoft did not learn to make a UI consistent. Apple UI is not only consistent but intuitive, far ahead!"

I will agree on the consistency - I think MS is simply trying to improve the UI - nothing wrong with that if its successful.

As far as intuitive - I'm not sure either are. I certainly don't see the MAC being more intuitive than windows.

DirectX 10 unnecessary? Depends how you look at it. And there won't be DirectX 10 for XP as the architecture needed would require a rewrite of the OS, as I recall. DirectX 10 is a complete rewrite and is not backwards compatible. That warrants a full version number. One should care (whether of not there are any DirectX 10 games now) since this means no DirectX 10 title will be released for anything other than Vista.

Yeah, you can download it here if you want to give it a try.

friedrickjoel.com/jezzball.zip

I hope MS doesn't sue them for patching their OS - like some sort of Patent Infringement or something.

This is one of the reasons I do like and support OpenSource software. If something is broken, people can fix it themselves and submit the code to the project if they want.

It's not the first time, remember the first patch for the WMF exploit was made by a third party. Microsoft cannot endorse them because that would make them responsible in case the patch screws something up.

Nailed it.

If something goes wrong, and MS had told folks to use it, they'd be liable.

They'll come out with their own patch on the 10th. I'm sure the non-existent victims of this exploit will thank them mightily.

Sheesh. Instead of arguing about the failures of Windows for the ten thousandth time, why not comment on whether the eEye patch is a good idea or not?

When I read the comments on BetaNews, it's mostly to find out what experience people have had with bugs, patches, and programs, and how well they seem to work.

"When I read the comments on BetaNews, it's mostly to find out what experience people have had with bugs, patches, and programs, and how well they seem to work."

You're new here, aren't you?

lmao...

"Sheesh. Instead of arguing about the failures of Windows for the ten thousandth time, why not comment on whether the eEye patch is a good idea or not?"

no no no....you have it all wrong. This is a place of flame wars and b****ing. It also has a fairly large population of children. There's nothing quite like children roasted over and open microsoft flame fest.

Amazing...betanews is starting to bring in more viewers, and apparently most of them are small children...

...I'm referring to those who over-generalize in this comment section.

Some OSs are better than others, right on that. Microsoft should make the best, as they have all the resources they may need (say money, programmers, infrastructure, marketing, lawyers, lawyers, lawyers). But their software is pathetic, flawed from design and from scratch.
I'm still not sure if they really do it on purpose or not, as they are very skilled on many areas (Marketing being the most important). But now, they are repeating old bugs, and something smell bad.
They are unable to maintain (not even develop) their own code, for their main product, with THOUSANDS of coders, something smell bad, pretty bad.
Microsoft is huge, and will not fall in short time. They still could change, but if they continue developing as they are, their way is to the cliff.
Open source is the future. Apple was (and is) pioneer: Took the hardest OS, mounted a nice UI and there you have OS X, what a brillant idea! Linux is behind but growing, and other options will appear if Microsoft continue developing crap...
First step: Microsoft should reduce by billions the lines of useless code that Windows actually has to make the OS just do the basic: Allow you to operate the computer, as easy and fast as posible. Do you want to build other software? Great, do it, but sell them appart. I don't want to pay a fortune for a bloated crap.
Keep It Simple, Stupid!

There you go. THOUSANDS of coders. Good luck trying to keep them all straight even with project management software and the latest project features in Visual Studio. And every OS *WILL* have bugs, no way around it.

Windows when it comes to it, is just as good as Linux, all OS's have issues. Some are because they are "not" finished, others are bugs like this, others are still fixed but are patch beyond the scenes with upgrades * cough * Macs *cough* sorry I got a cold.

When it comes down to it, they each of their own strengths, and for the OS X and Windows cost exactly the same when you figure the cost into the computer. People are upset that Vista costs $150 to buy an upgrade for, I don't see people doing the same for the OX X upgrade that is yet to be released. That upgrade will cost money.

Linux is free, but it also doesn't have billions of $ into software research, nor does it have the big name programs that make computers great.

In other words, ALL OS's have bugs, they all have similar issues, only reason thats the case is because of the market. At the sametime, the only reason Windows and OS X is perhaps better feature wise, is because of the market.

This won't damage Windows because I am sure Linux had bug just as bad that was fixed recently.

Yes and no. There are many comparable programs to Windows versions. The great majority of people could get along fine with Linux and the programs offered. There is more open source software than Windows.

I am not sure just what "bad bug" you are talking about in Linux. The plus is that any bug found in Linux gets fixed faster than Windows.

Problem is those comparable programs aren't all that comparable though. OpenOffice is ok but most of them look like they were written by high school students. The Gimp just plain sucks when compared to Photoshop. Most of the media players are horrible, having ugly interfaces and don't even support many of the most common file formats until you spend a while adding unofficial repositories and mucking about with settings. If someone wants a desktop alternative to Windows I'd have to recommend OS X. Linux just isn't there yet.

If it takes you more than five minutes to add the repositories to add common file formats...which is not due to the fault of Linux, but rather due to licensing, you're just not proficient with Linux. Personally, I wasn't born knowing MS either, there was a major learning curve with that, or with any OS.

Linux fanboys are so funny.

I am a Windows man myself, but truth is truth.

I've tried Linux over and over again, and every time I can't wait to get back to Windows.

I tried Ubuntu as well and didn't like it. Mepis and PCLinuxOS work great right out of the box. I use Windows XP, but dual boot with PCLinuxOS.

Linux is safer and has many programs that are the same as Windows. You can also run Windows programs under WINE on Linux.

I just didn't want to upgrade to Vista as long as they have DRM built into the OS.

as they have DRM built into the OS.

So you *are* an idiot.

Well, that explains a lot.

There is no DRM built into the OS. There is support for HDMI/HDCP, namely, ICT (image Constraint Token), which is up to the studios to implement, and is a *requirement* to be able to support Blu-Ray and HD DVD movie playback.

If any of your favorite operating systems want to be able to play HD DVD or Blu-Ray movies, they will follow suit, or fall behind.

No need for name calling. That's correct though, without DRM support Linux will not be able to play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies at full quality should they ever enable ICT. It's a lot of work just getting DVDs to play on it.

Sorry, man. Someone opens up on me, all bets are off.

See below for his initial flame.

We all wear flameproof suits around here anyway, right? :p

yup

Ah, I didn't see that. Fair is fair then. :)

Whose the idiot, moron:

Microsoft is taking some heat over a digital-rights management (DRM) feature it's folding into its upcoming Vista (formerly Longhorn) operating system.

The feature, called Output Content Protection Management, encompasses several DRM-related schemes. The one that's raised hackles in several articles and blogs is a DRM-related check that's performed when playing back video on Vista-equipped PCs. According to Microsoft's description, the feature "makes sure that the PC's video outputs have the required protection or that they are turned off if such protection is not available."

In plain English, this means that Vista machines won't be able to play next-generation, high-definition DVDs in their full, high-resolution glory unless they're equipped with monitors that support a new DRM scheme called High-Bandwidth Digital Copy Protection, or HDCP.

That'll mean that PC owners wanting to upgrade to Vista will also have to spend hundreds of dollars to buy HDCP-compliant monitors, according to the flak being fired at Microsoft in the recent online postings. That thinking is reflected in stories like "Windows Offers New Vistas Of Spending," in the online edition of The Sydney Morning Herald and "Microsoft Vista Creates DRM Insanity," on the U.K. Web site The Inquirer. On the Techdirt blog, posters have weighed in with criticisms such as "leave it to Microsoft to actually embrace some Orwellian technology like this," and "who does this DRM technology benefit, apart from monitor manufacturers, who should be in for a nice windfall?"

Fanboys, whether the use Windows, Linux or Mac are funny in my book. I just refuse to feed money to a monopoly that would in turn use it to try to destroy something I like.

I love how this guy goes on and on complaining about how MS implemented this DRM feature...but completely doesn't mention (probably because he has no clue whatsoever) that the movie industry REQUIRES this DRM technology in order to play HD movies...you do know that this is an MPAA requirement right? Nah I wouldn't expect you to know any facts, just whatever you want to believe to give you ammo against MS.

Genius:

You just described the HDCP ICT.

Which, and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, is *exactly* what my post was about.

If *any* OS wants to support protected media from Blu-Ray or HD DVD, they must support the method of protection.

MS does not decide which titles are locked by ICT. The studios do.

Apparently, you're the idiot, moron.

That's a matter of experience. Every time I have to work on a Windows machine, I spend a lot of time trying to remember where everything is located and continually responding to the "You must reboot Windows for the change to take effect" message. I can't wait to get back to Linux.

There is a difference between lack of knowledge and lack of intelligence.

He proves the latter in the post below.

*nix forever.

Chalk another WIN up for Microsoft.

SUSE or Ubuntu all the way, MS is done.

Yeah, everything just works *so* flawlessly in SUE and Ubuntu....

lmao...

I love these posts. It's almost as though you jump at any chance to claim MS is dead.

What? A fly landed on a pile of s***? Heh...MS is dead.

Yup, MS is 'done'...

I can see it now: "MS done in by a cursor"

Replaced by the platform whose 15 years of existence have been targeted at copying the MS GUI but forgetting to develop a feasible desktop and even fewer applications.

But it doesn't crash nearly as often.

Unless print and application servers in the closet take over the world, I don't think so. And besides, there are not enough geeks in the world to make it work - even if it is free!

What a morons. Do you actually research this or do you come up with your own crap?

There is more open source software than Windows software and who copied who? I believe Apple had the GUI first.

Now if you'll just pause for a minute, that one brain cell you have floating around might connect.

PC_Tool and foxfyre post a lot together. Is this some idiots convention? Or are you guys just really close?

It was Xerox who "first" came out a GUI interface. Everyone else copied it. It seem that Apple may have got it right for home computers.

No.

We were waiting for you.

The "Linux is taking over the world" should be along any minute. So you are well on your way toward forming that idiots convention.

I use Windows primarily.

Research?

No, I use it on a daily basis.

Linux may have a lot of apps, I never said it didn't.

Xerox Had the GUI first, speaking of research. You might want to try doing some yourself.

As for the interface similarities, Linux has steadily come closer and closer to emulating the look and feel of Windows ever since they decided to laughably go after the desktop user. (KDE, anyone?)

As for foxfyre and I? We disagree on damn near everything, in case you haven't noticed. But we apparently both agree that the assumptions on the part of the parent poster were asinine and your defense of it laughable.

lmao..

You really don't want to get into a pissing match based on that.

Glad you use Windows. Glad you use Linux.

Now, after you've administered Enterprise LANs and supported countless home users under both platforms, let me know and we'll talk about old times.

Until then, you really don't want to spout off trying to tell me which is better for what purpose. Really.

True. It should be noted however that Apple paid Xerox for their GUI concepts, so the common myth that they stole it is not true. Microsoft on the other hand...

It's going to take a lot to kill MS. Another company will have to come up with something totally unique, something that will change the world of computers as we know it to kick MS off the top of the mountain. OSX may be better than Windows (so I've heard), but millions of people aren't going to learn a new OS, learn new programs, basically have to start from step 1. Companies in particular aren't going to do it. As long as we need to use a mouse and a keyboard to do things in an OS MS has nothing to worry about. If they're the first to come up with something new they'll stay #1.

Xerox never got theirs out of development. Apple did.

That makes you a computer god with all knowledge? You think too highly of yourself.

No, it doesn't. But it makes it so I don't have to listen to pukes like you. :)

Copied!=stolen.

Your point?

Someone else came up with it. Saying Apple did it first is just plain ignorant.

If its just the interface people are talking about... You can still and always have, been able to replace the Windows Interface with another. This can be done perfectly legally as well. There just hasn't been many completely different interfaces available. By interface I mean the whole explorer subsystem!

Microsoft does have the monopoly and the 'full version' license is in my opinion overpriced, but I still use it. Can't understand technically why there would be much call for a full version license, most people who are not upgrading their computer already have the Windows operating system on there anyway...

For the bugs, well that expected. Half of the problem with Windows is backwards compatibility. Its both an annoyance it terms of bloated code but also a good feature of it as it means you can use older software. The simple fact with linux its hard to keep up to date as you update the kernel for example it makes half the apps on the computer not work, then you have to recompile them just to find out something else doesn't work...

"MS is done."

Oh don't I wish...but sadly no. MS is a long way from done as Linux has a ways to go before most home users will even think of it as an option. They're too used to mindlessly clicking through everything. As for myself, Microsoft could disappear in a blinding flash of hellfire I would be happy.

LAN? Is a LAN that thing you do with parallel ports and laplink?

heh

jes, many of us are immortal.

Thx (heh)

ROFL

Any time anyone makes this comment my respect for them goes to 0.