__/ [ Jim Richardson ] on Sunday 08 October 2006 20:15 \__
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:49:25 GMT,
> Robert Newson <ReapNewsB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Windows Vista: It's More Secure, We Promise
>>
>> And to MS that is true:
>>
>> MS take the "$OEM recommends Windwos XP" to have a missing "than /Windwos/
>> 2000, 98, etc".
>>
>> Similarly, when MS says "Windwos Vista: It's More Secure", again, there is
>> a missing "than /Windwos/ 2000, 98, etc".
>
> Vista can't be more secure than Windows95, at least, not according to
> Erik....
Maybe they should DRM the binaries. Security and risk are, after all, an
encrypted binary thing. Sure it'll be a helluva lot slower to run programs.
But, hey, didn't they say Vista is a dog in terms of performance? Maybe they
beat us to it.
|
|
