Microsoft and You

[atomizer]

I've just come accross the most informative, disturbing and well written article that I have ever read reguarding Microsoft and their products. If you use MS products, as I do, you need to check this out...

http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm

[Zxian]

Well written? I think not...

Windows XP, and all modern operating systems, have a feature called virtual memory that is supposed to put programs on the hard disk that are loaded but not being currently used. However, this feature does not work well in Windows XP. When the memory limit is reached, a Windows XP system takes a long time to respond and does a lot of disk access. Sometimes the disk access, called "thrashing" because it indicates something is not working properly, continues for 45 seconds or 90 seconds or more after clicking on a loaded program to bring it to the top of the desktop. The result is that Windows XP becomes less usable and eventually must be rebooted.

In contrast, the virtual memory feature in the Linux operating system works extremely well. There is disk access, of course, but only what would be expected.

You're kidding me, right? Thrashing happens because something is "not working properly"? Thrashing happens when there's a crap-load of disk access in many different places. This can happen with any file system. I've had Linux systems thrash quite a bit as well...

The whole section on "Local security"? If someone is sitting at your computer with Windows, Linux, Unix, or whatever else, they've got full access to your computer. Plain and simple. This isn't a limitation of Windows - it's the fact that if your computer gets stolen, so does all the data that was on it. If you want more security over your data, you need a proper drive-lock enabled in BIOS, not the OS.

5) Seriously Reduced Functionality Sometimes the old software does things the new software doesn't. Windows XP has very seriously reduced functionality:

a ) Windows 98 can copy all of its own files, Windows XP cannot. The Windows XP file system is artificially crippled; it cannot copy some of its own system files. This makes it difficult to make functional backups. Microsoft apparently uses this crippling as copy protection.

b ) Reduced Functionality: Hard disks cannot be moved. Windows XP, and Windows 2000, make it very difficult to move a hard drive to another computer. Microsoft has written Windows XP so that it cannot be easily moved to another computer. This article on Intel's web site describes the problem: Moving a Hard Drive to a New Motherboard [intel.com]. The article says, "Moving a hard drive with Windows 2000 or Windows XP already installed to a new motherboard without reinstalling the operating system is not recommended." (This is a universal problem; Intel motherboards are only being used as an example.) Note that the problem is not just moving a hard drive to a new motherboard; the same problem is encountered when moving a copy of all software on a hard drive to a new motherboard. It is thus impossible to make functional backups. Instead, it is necessary to re-install the operating system and all the programs, progam updates, and security patches.

Really? Is this such a bad thing? It's to prevent the illegal spread of Windows. Making an image of the hard drive is just like moving the hard drive, so it makes perfect sense that Microsoft made the HAL system dependent. Microsoft needs a way to prevent the easy illegal spread of its product, and that's exactly what this "limitation" does. Don't like it? Don't use it.

The registry file is a single very vulnerable point at which failure can occur. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user. There are many areas like this where Microsoft's design conflicts with the needs of the users.

Granted... but does the average user really need access to every single registry entry? Most people run their computers without any problems without ever knowing what the registry is.

Man... the more and more I read, the more p***ed off I get.

The author is not anti-Microsoft in any way.

I call bull. The article only outlines all the negative things about Windows XP, and none of the advantages. He's even got the gall to say that Windows 95 is better than XP... get real!

Sorry atomizer... but it also doesn't help that the article was last revised on February 16, 2003. It's nearly 3 years out of date, so a lot of the information is out of place.

[Jeremy]

Pwned.

[prathapml]

Article is just FUD!

[Zxian]

Article is just FUD!

Yup... there's plenty more examples that I could have torn apart there... but I figured that the few I did was basis enough to disprove the article.

[Tarun]

So THAT's what happens when they let the dogs out.

[noonereallycares]

I always plan my IT systems on articles that were written 3 YEARS AGO

[atomizer]

Yup... there's plenty more examples that I could have torn apart there... but I figured that the few I did was basis enough to disprove the article.

first of all, your comments are partially directed at me and i didn't write it. however this came as no surprise.

what is it that you've torn apart? disproved? you haven't provided any technical details or sources of information whatsoever, even regarding the use of the pagefile. and the pagefile issue, as well as other items you chose to comment on, have little to do with the core of the article, which is where the author (again, not me) feels MS is heading and he's packed quite a bit of evidence to back up his point of view. did you visit and study any of the references?

also, don't forget that i'm running XP, however i'm not about to allow that to cloud my judgment. i have heard meaningful evidence from 2 law enforcement officers (1 personal relationship and the other through phone calls and email), one being in computer forensics, about the severe invasion of privacy that is going on behind our backs as far MS OS's storing and hiding information. when asked if this information could be accessed by MS without my knowledge, that's where they seemed to draw the line and didn't really want to comment any further. then i run into the article i linked to, and the papers/articles/websites the author linked to, and gets down right overwhelming...

Hidden Connections]/b]

Why so many defects?

You cannot know now to what contract provisions you will be held in the future

A government that uses proprietary software is not an independent government.

In the United States, Microsoft has considerable political power. It has been estimated that the cost to U.S. businesses for only four Windows-based infections, Nimda, Code Red, SirCam and Love Bug, was about $13 billion. These infections were possible because of the unusually poor security design of Microsoft Windows. No other operating system has had such vulnerability.

Microsoft restricts your software options. When you use Microsoft Windows XP, you are prevented by the license from using valuable software that competes with Microsoft's. See Brian Livingston's column [infoworld.com] in which this is discussed, beginning in the fifth paragraph. The license says:

"Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

Although this restriction is probably illegal even in the United States where it was written, a large company might not feel that it could risk legal involvement with a rich company like Microsoft, even if it knew it would win.

Palladium gives Microsoft the ability to prevent users from seeing their own documents and data.

Where is Microsoft taking us? There are many other indications of where Microsoft is taking its customers. People who buy Microsoft mice don't get the full functionality until they let the mouse software (!) connect to Microsoft's computers.

the fact that the article is nearly 3 years old is largely irrelevant, unless changes have been made that would affect its accuracy. have changes been made to MS policy? if so, where?

[Tarun]

atomizer, it's a thing called common sense.

[redxii]

Holy s***, news just in that both OSes use the hard drive for extra memory and that the hard drive is a very slow component.

[Shark007]

*toned down*

shark

Edited December 17, 2005 by Shark007

[prathapml]

Shark007, please tone down the above.

atomizer, that article is all very well, but the fact is that it comes under a category called spreading

<fear, uncertainty, doubt>.

Pretty much everything in there, is presented by the author in an exaggerated manner.

And no, Zxian wasn't directing any comments at you, so have no mis-conceptions.

All comments here, are criticism for the article, not for the poster!

As for the article itself, MS is not quite THAT evil either!

They do have an obligation to make a profit, but the situation is not like what the article makes it out to be.

As for the article, pretty much every sentence is loaded with FUD, as can be proved below, of the section you have quoted.

Hidden Connections

ahem, system tools show me absolutely everything that goes on, in my OS'es internals.

Why so many defects?

Where WindowsXP does fail, its either because of limitations from the outside (hardware abilities, legal terms, etc), or just plain & simply, bugs that come up due to scenarios that weren't expected. No software is ever perfect, & no programmer can possibly foresee all the conditions under which his product could fail!

You cannot know now to what contract provisions you will be held in the future.

regarding this, and the fuss over license, the answer is not mysterious at all. Its as simple as, protecting their investment & ensuring that customers use the product in the way it was supposed to be. The more ppl try to dig loop-holes & use the products in contravention to the spirit of the EULA, the more cautious they get, and reserve the right to bring in additional words. That is all it is.

A government that uses proprietary software is not an independent government.

In the United States, Microsoft has considerable political power.

Any large organisation tends to gather clout! And the US govt can bring MS to its knees anytime it decides to!

It has been estimated that the cost to U.S. businesses for only four Windows-based infections, Nimda, Code Red, SirCam and Love Bug, was about $13 billion.

It has been estimated that the benefit to US businesses due to the existence of Windows, adds up to hundreds of billions of dollars!

These infections were possible because of the unusually poor security design of Microsoft Windows. No other operating system has had such vulnerability.

Well, no other OS has had quite as much ease-of-use either. Ease-of-use & tight-security are inversely proportional. Its a fact of life, to be accepted & moved on. And NOOOO, citing the Mac OSX case is not allowed, the mac's impregnable security is illusional - as more ppl use it, more flaws get noticed!

Palladium gives Microsoft the ability to prevent users from seeing their own documents and data.

FUD again. In any case, DRM is a demand coming from hollywood & the RIAA, that have fairly larger spheres of influence than MS! Are you aware of the arm-twisting they resorted to with MS, which just couldn't be fought back?

Where is Microsoft taking us?

that article simply expresses a natural fear of growing influence!

Any other company in MS's position, would have suffered the same brickbats.

Edited December 17, 2005 by prathapml

[wolf7448]

HOLY FUDGE,

THAT IS SO FUDGEN UNTRUE ITS ALMOST FUNNY!

That article almost makes microsoft sound as corrupt as the FDA

*toned down*

shark

your signature image is the only one i have ever seen that is actully right!

Good work!

Edited December 18, 2005 by wolf7448