« First « Previous Comments 47 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
I hate to break this to you -- no wait, I love to break this to you -- but iPhones came with a factory-installed keylogger that you couldn't uninstall called "Carrier IQ". So much for Apple products being more secure.
Honey, I'm afraid you're not breaking anything. I know, and I don't use anything financial on my phone.
There's only one reason Macs didn't have many viruses until recently: Nobody used them. It was a waste of time to develop spyware and malware for a fraction of all computer users.
The only reason Macs didn't get malware was for the same reason Hermits don't get STDs.
The only reason Macs didn't get malware was for the same reason Hermits don't get STDs.
Exactly!
Honey, I'm afraid you're not breaking anything. I know, and I don't use anything financial on my phone.
Millions of people do. Smart phone security is a damn important issue. And even if you aren't directly victimized by banking or identify fraud, the fact that tens of millions of others are does impose a cost on you. So poo-pooing this subject matter is just plain foolishness.
Of course, Heraclitusstudent's short-sightedness is typical of Apple fanboys.
Ah, but Apple didn't make BSD.
No one's claiming that it did.
Here's a list of OS's which Microsoft didn't make:
- DOS
- Windows NT
Microsoft has a tradition of acquiring/absorbing products developed by others, and then ruining them. SQL Server is a notable exception.
And those Microsoft products designed in-house which survive (Office) should be far better products, given the resources MS has. MS Access is an insult to the human race.
At least they got .NET and Windows 8 right (in spite of the awful outer layer, I agree that Windows 8 is their best OS to date).
Windows NT 4.0 Server and Workstation, was by far my favorite version of any OS Microsoft ever put out.
All of the Server components worked as designed with out having to hack fixes and workarounds.
At least they got .NET and Windows 8 right
.NET was born out of necessity.
They had all of the work they did on J++ that Java was suing them for. So they took a calamity and turned it into a success.
Had Java been willing to work with MS more, the two technologies would have came to a point where the libraries could have been used interchangeably.
As it is MS took J++ and made it something else entirely, and took 3/4 of the Java developers and about 90% of the Enterprise Java projects with it.
Java would still be SUN and SUN would be bigger than Google today, and we'd all be saying "Oracle who?" today, had they been willing to work with MS.
Millions of people do. Smart phone security is a damn important issue. And even if you aren't directly victimized by banking or identify fraud, the fact that tens of millions of others are does impose a cost on you. So poo-pooing this subject matter is just plain foolishness.
Based on your rhetoric, you are probably using Android: a tool designed specifically to spy on you and capture as much information on you as possibly can.
There are probably dozens of key loggers and other spyware applications on your phone.
Funny to see you lecture people on Smart phone security.
“Do you think Apple helped them build that?†Appelbaum asks at one point in his talk. “I don’t know. I hope Apple will clarify that… Here’s a problem: I don’t really believe that Apple didn’t help them. I can’t really prove it, but they [the NSA] literally claim that anytime they target an iOS device, that it will succeed for implantation. Either they have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products, meaning that they are hoarding information about critical systems that American companies produce and sabotaging them, or Apple sabotaged it themselves. Not sure which one it is. I’d like to believe that since Apple didn’t join the PRISM program until after Steve Jobs died, that maybe it’s just that they write shitty software.â€
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/the-nsa-reportedly-has-total-access-to-your-iphone/
they [the NSA] literally claim that anytime they target an iOS device, that it will succeed for implantation.
NSA obviously has access, and quite frankly I'm not too worried either about NSA looting my financial accounts or listening conversations.
Also remember the main NSA argument against the 4th amendment: The amendment doesn't apply to private companies and if private parties have your information, then the NSA can take it. Nice way to say "Screw the constitution". But at least in theory it means the NSA shouldn't hack everyone's phone without a mandate, just because they can.
So here is the obvious difference between Apple and Google: Google is in the business of getting any information they can on you, then monetize this info. That means all this info is automatically fair game for NSA. Google acts like a private front for the NSA that free them from the constitution.
Apple is not in this business. Again, at least in theory...
Google has been found to listen to your conversations without explicit approval. Apple hasn't.
Not that I trust Apple, Google or the NSA.
New Microsoft "OS" always requires you to upgrade your PC to take advantage of the improvements, responsiveness of the new "OS" on a few years old PC is always slower than the early version of "OS". And despite its larger installed base, which should spread the cost of software development thinner, cost of a standalone "OS" is very expensive till the coming "free" Windows 10.
Last I heard, world wide "shipments" of PCs is declining while sale of Macs are increasing. This is despite counting Macs and chrome books. In 2014, Apple, with 12.2% marketshare, is the number three "PC" manufacturer in USA. People is beginning to understand the Microsoft way and moving towards Macs.
Choosing between a Mac and a PC is like choosing a piece of art. If you value beauty and great user experience, choose the well design well built Mac. If you value collage, choose "allow you to assemble option" PC.
Here's a list of OS's which Microsoft didn't make:
- DOS
- Windows NT
Microsoft bought QDOS, Quick and Dirty Operating System, which itself was a knockoff of CP/M. Microsoft renamed it DOS, Disk Operating System and then refined it over 15 years. It's not like much time was spent on DOS because it was so simple. There were, however, two versions of DOS, MS-DOS and PC-DOS. The later was IBM's fork.
Windows NT was based on and shared code with IBM's OS/2, a great operating system for its time. Both OS/2 and NT were initially developed by both companies, which is why you'll never see the OS/2 code go public. There are too many complicated licensing issues.
However, to say Microsoft didn't make NT is disingenuous. Although the roots of NT and OS/2 are shared, the NT line has diverged from those originals significantly and Microsoft certainly invented thousands of things in NT such as NTFS.
If the point you are trying to make is that Microsoft is also a company that copies products, makes a bad knock-off of them, and then refines them over and over again for years until they are good, then I agree. I've said that many times. Every product from Office to Internet Explorer to Bing is a copy of another product. Granted I.E. never got good and Bing has yet to, but they are the exceptions to the rule.
The difference is that no one suggests that Microsoft invented the word processor, the spreadsheet, email, web browsers, or anything else it didn't actually invent. And users of Microsoft products are brainwashed religious freaks who think Bill Gates and Steve Balmer can do no wrong and there is nothing wrong about Microsoft produces. PC users have always criticized and praised Microsoft as appropriate. We can name many things we dislike about Windows, but at the same time, we don't switch because we dislike more things about Apple's OS.
And PC users have a long history of running multiple operating systems on their PC at the same time using multiboot and even simultaneously using virtual machines. I remember triple-booting OS/2, Windows 95, and MS-DOS on my PC back in college. And that was without VMs. I've also ran Microsoft Office and Open Office concurrently. PC users have no problem making switches when a better option comes along. We're not boxed into an inescapable relationship like MAC fanboys. In fact, PC users strongly prefer platform independence, which is why we like Java and even .NET, whose apps can be ran on non-Windows systems like Unix and platforms like Android thanks to Xamarin.
The bottom line is that if you cannot criticize the products you are using, it's not because they are awesome. It's because you are brainwashed.
Based on your rhetoric, you are probably using Android: a tool designed specifically to spy on you and capture as much information on you as possibly can.
You're ignorance is amazing. Do you even know what Android is? Can you define it? No, but you'll Google it and copy someone else's description and claim it as your own, but you'll probably copy something incorrect anyway.
Your ignorance is exactly why your opinion carries no weight.
responsiveness of the new "OS" on a few years old PC is always slower than the early version of "OS"
Actually, not always true. It's usually true because the newer version of the OS does more things, but sometimes the new OS is faster than the previous version on any hardware.
This is the case in Windows 8, which is faster than Windows 7. The reason for this is that sometimes a release prioritizes making performance improvements rather than implementing new features. Older functionality gets rewritten in a more efficient manner. And this does not apply only to operating systems.
Last I heard, world wide "shipments" of PCs is declining while sale of Macs are increasing.
MAC today are PCs. A MAC sale is a PC sale. PC won the MAC/PC war hands down.
I think you mean worldwide sales of MAC's implementation of Unix, still called by the marketing name OS X even though OS X is not in any way the same operating system as OS 9 and all prior Macintosh operating systems, versus sales of Windows.
What you probably heard is that tracking of operating system use by websites, using the information reported by browsers, indicates a growth in the use of iOS. Here's the graph and an article.
The thing to realize is that these metrics only represent web browsing, which is done on client machines. As more people switch to using tablets or phones for web browsing, the traffic scene by Android and iOS will, of course, become greater. This does not mean people aren't using desktops and laptops running other operating systems, but rather that they are doing more of their surfing on their other devices.
Those metrics also do not measure actual sales or the installation base of operating systems. In fact, they completely discard the server side of the Internet. Every time you use an app or visit a website, your device is talking to an endpoint backed with one, a hundred, or even thousands of servers. And those servers aren't running Android or iOS or even MAC Unix. They are running Linux or Windows (or maybe another version of Unix in a few cases).
It's harder to get statistics on server installations because you can't sample web browsing traffic, but most statistics I read show that a third of web servers are running Windows and two thirds are running Unix, but that's a server version of Unix, not MAC BSD. Of course, web servers aren't the only servers out there. Database servers also throw a monkey wretch in the system. And then there are internal servers for corporations. I've yet to work at a place where they didn't run a Windows NT domain.
Still, Microsoft has definitely gotten crushed in the mobile arena. I strongly prefer Android over Windows CE or Windows 8 for that.
Dear Everyone,
Thank You for educating Dan, the sole cave man who still defends stone age OS.
Unfortunately, you wasted your time, because he never learns.
Thanks
Strategist
Do you even know what Android is?
Google phone OS. a piece of software that include features to spy what you do in your apps , from a company making software that listen your conversations without notifying you.
DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says
- Windows NT
I wonder where David Cutler is now. . .
I read a microsoft press release recently that mentioned him working on the xbox one.
Windows NT was based on and shared code with IBM's OS/2, a great operating system for its time. Both OS/2 and NT were initially developed by both companies, which is why you'll never see the OS/2 code go public. There are too many complicated licensing issues.
However, to say Microsoft didn't make NT is disingenuous. Although the roots of NT and OS/2 are shared, the NT line has diverged from those originals significantly and Microsoft certainly invented thousands of things in NT such as NTFS
I think your memory is faulty. I remember NT/OS/2 as a joint project that fell apart. IBM went on with newer versions os/2 by itself using the os/2 api. MS hired david cutler and team from DEC who wrote NT fresh. NT was a totally different architecture from os/2 without any os/2 code using a windows api. As far as I know cutlers teams code, which became NT, was never used or even seen at IBM.
« First « Previous Comments 47 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
Microsoft ended support for Windows XP almost a year ago… and it still has more users than Windows 8
How much has Windows 8 bombed with PC users? So much that an obsolete operating system that had its technical support cut off nearly a full year ago still has more global users.
Recall that it was on April 8th last year that Microsoft ended support for Windows XP, which meant that users stopped getting any more automatic updates and were no longer able to download Microsoft Security Essentials for their PCs anymore. Microsoft made a big push to get people to move away from XP for security reasons and upgrade to newer software, particularly to Windows 8 or 8.1.
Despite this push, however, the biggest gainer over the past year has been Windows 7… and it’s not even close.
According to NetMarketShare, at this time last year Windows 8 and 8.1 had a combined market share of 11.3%, Windows 7 had a market share of 48.8% and Windows XP had a market share of 27.5%. One year later, NetMarketShare’s numbers inform us that Windows 8 and 8.1 now have a combined market share of 14%, Windows 7 has a market share of 58% and XP has a market share of 16.9%.
So to recap: Over the past year, Windows 8.x’s market share has gained 2.7 percentage points while Windows 7’s has gained 9.2 percentage points. Not only that but an operating system that hasn’t received technical support for nearly a year still has a higher market share than Windows 8.x.