Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:28:41 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>> Okay, thanks for the clarification. I don't see how this is relevant
>>> to
>>> the "Vista is not a service pack" discussion though.
>>
>> I still abide by my belief that touting security as a 'feature' in Vista
>> is plain wrong. If the previous product is broken, it must be fixed.
>> Urging the customer to but newer products (with the hardware 'side
>> effect') is unacceptable. Some of the features in Vista should have been
>> provided in the form of a Service Pack to XP. Back in 2005, Microsoft
>> promised it would deliver SP3 for XP. Ironically, they did so with a
>> rename and a price tag.
>
> There is going to be an XP SP3, available, like all service packs, for
> free download.
>
> However, your point is invalid. Vista has security above and beyond XP.
> They're not touting patched holes as a feature. They're touting
> additional security features, like low-rights IE, UAC, and UIPI.
Which all should have been added to XP years ago.
Do you claim that this would be impossible?
The way MS does business is selling a defective, crappy product while
already started with the new one, and then simply telling its user base to
again buy the next one instead of patching the garbage they sold
Apart from that, Shorthorn MCD will probably be no better than XP security
wise. IE, low rights or not, will still be garbage of the worst kind, UAC
will be a pain in the ass and disabled by most users and in effect they
will run Fista just like they run XP now: With full admin rights
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Form follows malfunction.
|
|
