Was the version that was shown the final product or a test build? If it was still a test build, then it's not really a good representative of MS hurting itself.
Also, why does everyone keep saying the UNIX kernel is inherently more secure than the NT kernel? I have never understood the reasoning behind this.
More recently
YouTube - CNET News: Steve Jobs' demo fail
Hi,
I was actually a long time Mac OS X user before I finally decided that I wouldn't pay the premium price tag for a computer - I came back, after many years to Windows (although I used Windows daily at work)
The improvements between XP to Vista to 7 were massive, but unfortunately for Apple they don't really innovate anything really new. The whole thing has looked the same since 2000 or earlier, and then each release brings maybe 3 new things which seem good. To be real honest, they should stop bringing out one each year and focus on a completely new one every 3 years. The upgrades never really had that wow factor.
Windows 7 does everything I used to do on my Mac, and one feature I absolutely love is the snapping!
The premium price I was refering to was the fact I can get a better spec PC laptop for less money than an lower and older spec Mac laptop.
Just finally got a copy of OS X Lion (for Developers) from the Apple Developer Website. Didn't run well on my Macbook Pro - decided to run on my iMac. Quite amazing - same GUI.
1.) Whether it was a test build or not is irrelevant. The user base and the final end reputation as of 98SE says it all.
2.) The Unix kernal is to some extent more secure because you are setup to run as a standard user out of the box. Root = Admin in UNIX/Linux world. So, when you run as root, you open yourself to the same potential problems with hackers as windows.
Plus, Linux user Base is different,
a.) They don't write garbage to attack themselves.
b.) there is no money in it as the user base is insignificant
c.) It can require a level of social engineering in order to attack a linux system successfully if setup properly.
So, Linux/UNIX are more secure over all (if setup properly), but, they have their own sore spots and drawbacks as well. Many of which far outweigh the security pros aspect of using it for normal everyday joe.
*****************************
And if you pay the same price for a Windows PC build with same (most times Better) hardware.Windows 7 does everything I used to do on my Mac
You can do absolutely everything that a MAC can do. From Audio composing to PhotoShop to Video production.
And you will more than likely get 1/3 to 1/2 more PC for the same price as a mac.
Remember, Mac Hardware IS Intel hardware.
Don't Windows Vista and Windows 7 set you up with limited permissions also? In XP, you had full access to everything, but in Vista and up, even on an admin account, the UAC will pop up. Isn't this basically the same as having Linux/UNIX ask for the root password on a standard user?
Also, I'm well aware that Linux/UNIX has less viruses because of the lower usage share, but I've also heard that if Linux/UNIX did get a virus, the damage won't be as extensive as an infected Windows system. This is really what's confusing me.
Lastly, what do you mean "It can require a level of social engineering in order to attack a linux system successfully if setup properly."? Do you mean that it's harder to trick a Linux/UNIX user into installing a virus?
Yes, and no.Don't Windows Vista and Windows 7 set you up with limited permissions also? In XP, you had full access to everything, but in Vista and up, even on an admin account, the UAC will pop up. Isn't this basically the same as having Linux/UNIX ask for the root password on a standard user?
Not like Linux/Unix, but almost like it. And UAC has been hacked. So, Win7 security is not perfect, but it is much better than XP out of the box. But, XP can be made more secure, like Linux, as can Win7. But it requires configuring properly
Yes, that is true, due to how linux/Unix are designed. But, it also could depend on the virus and the setup of the environment as well. Some people insist on running as Root.Also, I'm well aware that Linux/UNIX has less viruses because of the lower usage share, but I've also heard that if Linux/UNIX did get a virus, the damage won't be as extensive as an infected Windows system. This is really what's confusing me.
Yes.Lastly, what do you mean "It can require a level of social engineering in order to attack a linux system successfully if setup properly."? Do you mean that it's harder to trick a Linux/UNIX user into installing a virus?
Let's face the real hard facts. Windows users are not educated Computer users.
Linux/Unix are not for the average Joe.
Give a Ubuntu box to any average joe and ask them to use it for one month and then come back and tell you what they think.
It won't be all roses
Quote