• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Microsoft Ending Support for Windows 98 and ME

jaguarr said:
After the debacle that was Windows 3.1 and 3.1.1, PC victims were dying for any OS that was even halfway user-friendly, so it's no wonder they bought up Windows 95 by the truckloads.

jag

Yet, they didn't have an interest in the all usuable Mac.

Although I actually like the Mac in concept, I prefer being able to buy software off the shelf without wondering if it'll work on my computer.

Everytime.
 
War Lord said:
Yet, they didn't have an interest in the all usuable Mac.

Although I actually like the Mac in concept, I prefer being able to buy software off the shelf without wondering if it'll work on my computer.

Everytime.

You have to understand the intricacies of how Microsoft ran their corporate licensing programs (which is where Apple faltered in the early days) to see how they became so pervasive. People would buy machines for home use that were the same as they were used to using in their jobs. Back then, the cross compatibility between the two platforms flat out sucked, and even far superior OS's for the time like OS2 Warp got buried by Microsoft's marketing machine (I used to have to support ALL those OS's and many more, including Windows NT (workstation and server), VAX/VMS, HP/UX and Solaris so I got a pretty in depth look at all of those OS's). It is what it is, but as it stands today, Apple has flat out eliminated all compatibility issues and truly offers the superior OS and computing experience (not to mention more secure and stable), and with things like Boot Camp and Parallels, enabling you to run Windows on your Mac if you want to, you have a wider selection of software available than a PC can offer you.

Macs are definitely worth a look these days, no matter what someone's personal bias might be.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
You have to understand the intricacies of how Microsoft ran their corporate licensing programs (which is where Apple faltered in the early days) to see how they became so pervasive. People would buy machines for home use that were the same as they were used to using in their jobs. Back then, the cross compatibility between the two platforms flat out sucked, and even far superior OS's for the time like OS2 Warp got buried by Microsoft's marketing machine (I used to have to support ALL those OS's and many more, including Windows NT (workstation and server), VAX/VMS, HP/UX and Solaris so I got a pretty in depth look at all of those OS's). It is what it is, but as it stands today, Apple has flat out eliminated all compatibility issues and truly offers the superior OS and computing experience (not to mention more secure and stable), and with things like Boot Camp and Parallels, enabling you to run Windows on your Mac if you want to, you have a wider selection of software available than a PC can offer you.

Macs are definitely worth a look these days, no matter what someone's personal bias might be.

jag

It's only more secure, because it's not as worthwhile for a virus writer to focus on a continually dropping (percentwise) number of machines when he can focus the majority.

I had a chance to ask a computer teacher at a university what could Microsoft do to make their machine more secure and his response was that it's a tradeoff between generalization and specialization. Microsoft could be more secure, but than that would require Microsoft to make it more difficult for software writers and peripherals by requiring less flexibility in what could be used in a Microsoft machine, just like Apple.

This is why I can go to a software store and have reams of programs for my Windows PC and if I want a Mac program, I've got two shelves.
 
War Lord said:
It's only more secure, because it's not as worthwhile for a virus writer to focus on a continually dropping (percentwise) number of machines when he can focus the majority.
Mmmmm...the old "security through obscurity" myth. Not surprised you would dredge that tired old argument up. Here, read up:

http://www.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=18366&messageID=356982&start=265

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Personal-Security-Myths-And-Monsters-Behind-The-Monitor-17922.shtml

http://weblog.infoworld.com/daily/archives/2006/06/talkback_is_app.html

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2159765/apple-security-record-unscathed

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/technology/circuits/18POGUE-EMAIL.html


As I write this, there are well over 114,000 viruses, trojans and pieces of malware on the Windows platform. There have been exactly three proof of concept viruses/trojans constructed for the Mac OS X platform and only one of them (a worm called Leap-A that the actual effectiveness/threat of has been debated and disputed since a user's interaction and permission to run still have to be given for it to work) have been able to function in the wild or propogate due to OS X's Free BSD underpinnings, which make it inherently more difficult for virii to install or spread themselves.

Even computer security software makers recommend Macintosh over Windows because it's more secure.

Macs, like most other flavors of UNIX, are inherently more secure than Windows.


jonty said:
I had a chance to ask a computer teacher at a university what could Microsoft do to make their machine more secure and his response was that it's a tradeoff between generalization and specialization. Microsoft could be more secure, but than that would require Microsoft to make it more difficult for software writers and peripherals by requiring less flexibility in what could be used in a Microsoft machine, just like Apple.

This is why I can go to a software store and have reams of programs for my Windows PC and if I want a Mac program, I've got two shelves.
Mac's aren't less flexible in what peripherals can be used with their systems. Some peripheral makers (increasingly fewer, by the way) just don't go to the trouble of writing Mac drivers and software because they don't want to play in that market. That's the only real limitation. Security has nothing to do with it.

As far as applications being availabe on the Mac platform, there are well over 12,000 applications available. Just because you frequent a store that caters to PC users and doesn't carry much Mac software doesn't mean that it's not available.

jag
 
I have heard this argument for a long time.

The question is...
If Macintosh had 95% of the marketshare, would there be 100,000 viruses for it?

I would be willing there would be 25,000 or so.
 
Malice said:
I have heard this argument for a long time.

The question is...
If Macintosh had 95% of the marketshare, would there be 100,000 viruses for it?

I would be willing there would be 25,000 or so.

Sure there would be more viruses if Macs had 95% of the market. Not 100k+ worth, but there would be more. And they'd be much harder to propagate due to the way the security functions in the OS are implemented. UNIX systems are just more secure than Windows. The issue with Microsoft's systems is that they've constantly stacked rewritten code on top of rewritten code in the name of preserving backwards compatibility, so bugs and holes that have existed for years either were never fixed, mutated, or took way too long to be fixed. Windows is based on really sloppy code and lax security policies at the end of the day, and that lends itself to more security issues.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
Sure there would be more viruses if Macs had 95% of the market. Not 100k+ worth, but there would be more. And they'd be much harder to propagate due to the way the security functions in the OS are implemented. UNIX systems are just more secure than Windows. The issue with Microsoft's systems is that they've constantly stacked rewritten code on top of rewritten code in the name of preserving backwards compatibility, so bugs and holes that have existed for years either were never fixed, mutated, or took way too long to be fixed. Windows is based on really sloppy code and lax security policies at the end of the day, and that lends itself to more security issues.

jag

yup

The whole thing is a tradeoff...
Well Microsoft is moving to the security side now removing a good portion of the old devices it supported.
 
Malice said:
yup

The whole thing is a tradeoff...
Well Microsoft is moving to the security side now removing a good portion of the old devices it supported.

It will be interesting to see how much backwards compatibility with old softwares they'll try to include in Vista. Allowing open calls to certain API's is what's really gotten them in trouble in the past.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
It will be interesting to see how much backwards compatibility with old softwares they'll try to include in Vista. Allowing open calls to certain API's is what's really gotten them in trouble in the past.

jag

It's my understanding that Microsoft is trying to still allow legacy, but not through legacy programs, but throught newly written programs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"