news.softpedia.com — In all fairness, Windows Vista has no Father Program, but it does have predecessors. A short heritage line; feeble, weak lived variations, with the exception of XP and a genealogy plagued by vulnerabilities make up Vista?s background.
Aug 19, 2006 View in Crawl 4
craz1Aug 20, 2006
Firefox + Adblock Plus worked for me.. not a single ad :P
iamexciteAug 20, 2006
WinME: Vista! I am your father!Vista: No! That's not true... that's impossible!WinME: Search your feelings. You know it to be true!Vista: Nooooo!
xdevnullAug 20, 2006
I shed no tear for Symantec (at least there is one or two third parties looking critically at what MS is doing), and MS should be doing even more to secure the kernel and be smarter about user space - my understanding is that one still has to do most things as an administrator. But I have also heard that Vista is using a virgin network stack (<a class="user" href="http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm).">http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm).</a> This is slightly insane if for no other reason than that you can't say anything about the real security of an untested platform. It has been reported that an early version of this stack was vulnerable to the venerable old ping-of-death. Now - that was an early alpha or beta - but come on - it wasn't MS that discovered the vulnerability. Is this important? Hell yes! Most of the users on the internet use MS, and nearly all of the hacked zombie systems and malware and worm spreaders are MS systems - which haven't been patched - granted - probably mom&pop users still using the no longer supported win98. Introducing this new stack into the wild in such a careless way is madness. MS has been trying to get better about security, with updates and the like, but frankly, I still don't think they get it yet.
theblackleopardAug 21, 2006
Windows Vista reminds me of Ryan Seacrest since becoming the host of E! - A little extra eye make-up and some stubble doesn't change the fact that he's a jackass.
mancatAug 21, 2006
"However, Windows 2000 did adopt the Win9x shell and UI paradigm."And NT4 didn't?
whiteravenAug 21, 2006
I marked this as lame just because the writing is so bad. Was I missing some kind of joke? It is possible to use multisyllabic words with style and class... this is just a train wreck.
21chrispAug 23, 2006
@kolop1 I'm not sure how what you're describing is different than what I describe... Of course a beta is out there for the masses to test in ways the developers can't/don't have time to. What I'm saying is that the developers have tested and fixed glaring bugs before a Beta release. MS seems to release software as Beta despite a large number of KNOWN critical unresolved bugs. The problem with this is that these bugs can mask other bugs... the ones the users would actually be finding if it were a true beta. Critical bugs still usually slip through the alpha cycle, but there should be very few. It's hard to believe that MS would miss so many obvious ones. It seems more likely that they're known and released with the beta anyway. A few of these are OK, but too many detract a great deal from the effectiveness of a beta, which will effect the quality of the final product.