TeknologikL

I am agreeing with Microsoft on this one. There are several reasons to which their argument makes sense.

According to OneStat, 88.14% of users use a Windows operating system (OS), while macintosh slides into second with 11.85% of users, and linux follows with 3.67%. A majority of people use a Windows OS. So what does this mean? If you are a hacker, you are more likely to (a) find information online about hacking Windows OS and (b) get tons of information if you successfully hack into a Windows OS. It does not necessarily mean that someone will have a higher success of hacking into this OS, but there are probably several more hackers thinking about how many computers will be effected (88.14% versus 11.85%) than targeting a weak system. People are greedy, they are going to work towards what will give them the most $$ and information.

This causes me to believe that there are more attacks against Windows OS than any other OS. Why do you think jewelry stores have much more security than a stationary store? Because they have been targeted so many times. Because there is much more of a reward if you get 1lb of jewelry than 1lb of paper. There is so much more for hackers to gain by hacking an OS that is used by so many people, which leaves other OS's security not as strong.

"Security is a red herring anyway -- Windows 7, tightly deployed with the proper tools, is at least as secure as general deployments of Linux and the Mac OS."

How long since both Linux and Mac OS been in use?

Personally, I have no idea. But they had been around a lot longer than --Windows 7, anyway.

Basically, Bill Gates is mimicking the OS concept of the others which had been far more superior than MS DOS. Incidentally, he did the same with the internet browser also.

If that 88.14% figure's right then you can rest assured that is the greatest reason why Bill could afford not to make a move sooner to develop anything similar the other two have already.

But to assure anyone here 'thank god for GOOGLE' because when they start moving everything gets going.

Furthermore, here a link that should also make things a little more exiting for both MS and the end-users in the not too distant future. Frankly, I can hardly wait for it!

True 'Rome wasn't built in a day' but, it finally did collapse when it started to falter.

Google has an ulterior motive for wanting Windows to get bad press. They are releasing their own operating system later this year called Chrome OS.

That being said, open source is the way of the future and I'd love Chrome OS to give Windows a run for it's money but I don't see that happening for a while.

Google will need to get a few revisions of Chrome OS down and have broad support from application developers before it can be a full OS without the need for a dual-boot.

Once a radio presenter said "Bill Gates revealed in an interview he's reading a book on 'How the human brain works' and I've been reading a book for weeks on 'How does the computer work' - chapter one."

Microsoft had decades to deal with hacking and virus issues yet they have just carried on with the same old rubbish, but no real effort put in to sort it out.

I remember DOS used to be so fragile that it had caused hard drives to crash and since it is the very basic of the whole windows system it is unlikely to eliminate all of these hick ups.

DOS is a feeble concept and they just keep going around it by improving (modifying) and MS has not eliminated the problem in a one go because it is also a BIG sources of revenue for them the way things are.

People always forced to buy new software that's financially just crippling some small businesses as well as preventing home users to have a good, durable and reliable home system.

MS is here to stay as long as this current corrupt monetary system in place!

Correct me if I'm wrong but, didn't Bill use to be in and out of court over hosts of unethical business practices, especially in the EU where he tried to prevent other software manufacturers to come on the market?

Actually it wasn't a host of unethical business practices, but the same practice by one division of MS that got them in trouble in multiple countries for a number of things all basically equating to US anti trust violations (other countries in EU allow monopolies as long as they aren't non-european). Typically, these revolved around the practice of release of IE free with MS OS. So MS throwing in a bonus with their operating system was severely reducing other browser market share, and perceived as impeding fair market competition. The thing in the EU that always got me about that were companies like Debeers are legal in the EU, not in the US. So there really aren't any anti-trust laws there. However, the EU wanted its piece of the pie after the US initiated anti-trust actions against MS. I am not even sure why MS bothered paying them off, it is not like any substantial portuion of computers are built there. They could have just done business with US, Japan and China and still held same market position (I guess maybe they could not offer support and after market services in EU, which would have impacted some business lines).

The EU countries have a population of over 200million and that ,my friend, is the reason that MS paid up.

Message From Admins: This comment has been edited to remove the offensive language.

Oh they must have a population much higher than that, the density of people in EU is like the east coast of the US, and the US has over 300 million. I would guess there are at least 200 million just in the mediterranean countries of the EU. However, it is not the population that is the issue, it is where the software gets loaded onto the hardware. If MS had wanted they could just provide the manufacturers the OS, and not bother doing any direct business in EU, and do business indirectly through third party vendors of the hardware. They paid, as you said because there was a market there for the aftermarket services and software, and MS probably did a cost benefits analysis as to how much they can make on sales of other software and services after purchase of the computer systems. They decided there was more money to be made than lost. However, if the cost to benefit was reversed, they could just supply the manufacturers the OS directly (to US, Japan, Taiwan, or China), browser and Office bundles to load into the computer systems as usual and never even go near EU. Obviously the expendable capital in the hands of the masses was there and the free tiem to spend it on luxuries ( if you only have to work 12 months to get paid for 14 months salary on 30 hour weeks, a lot of luxry time to spend money). Under current market they might have had a different outcome to the cost benefits analysis.

Just checked it on wiki and it's averaged at "830.4 million" a of 2009.

"Security is a red herring anyway -- Windows 7, tightly deployed with the proper tools, is at least as secure as general deployments of Linux and the Mac OS."

So what he is saying is we all need to be security experts? I spend half my time already studying to keep up with my own profession. Now I am supposed to be a computer security expert also?

What the hell are we paying for a do it yourself OS kit?

Don't these guys make enough to hire the right people to make a fool proof product? If we must rely on the end user to "tightly deploy" with the "proper tools" then we are surely doomed!!!