Advanced

Why protect the users when you can fix the code?

Posted by VISITOR on · 7 comments
PC Magazine; By John Dvorak
Mail this story
Print this story

Dvorak writes: "Does Microsoft think it is going to get away with charging real money for any sort of add-on, service, or new product that protects clients against flaws in its own operating system? Does the existence of this not constitute an incredible conflict of interest? Why improve the base code when you can sell 'protection'?"

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: News Story; Groups: Microsoft

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (7)

I actually agree with Dvorak. I think I'm making an appointment for a checkup with my doctor.

Fave quote:

"Vista - Won't Boot Edition… $29.95 Vista - Preloaded with Viruses and Spyware Edition… $39.95 Vista - Initially Clean but Use at Your Own Risk Edition… $49.95 Vista - Clean with Firewall and Weekly Protection Update Edition… $200"
Don't worry. It's a temporary condition. No need to see a doctor.
This guy obviously missed the recent article on how they where forced to redesign Vista from the ground up, because they not only couldn't fix the code, they couldn't get it to function **at all**. So, MS is hedging its bets. Its going to redesign the OS, producing something that maybe won't reach the state of instantly self destruction, then moment you put everything into the OS, like Longhorn did, for another 20 years or so, then sell 'protection' to handle all in inevitable flaws that will creep in, between the initial 'mostly' stable version and the inevitable Titanic+Exxon Valdeze+Chernobal version that pops up 20 years from now and forces yet another complete rewrite. ;) lol
Well you what they Tuxchick. That a million monkeys pounding on a million computers will eventually make the works of shakespeare. Under that assumption even Dvorak will be right every once in a while.

There is a theory which states that if a million monkeys had a compiler and a keyboard each that eventually they'd come up with WIndows.

There is another theory that states that this has already happened.

I thought the second theory was now empirically proven.
peragrin: the original had six monkeys and an infinite amount of time. Then someone calculated that given the longest generally acceptable lifespan of the universe (~20 gigayears), they wouldn't have accidentally typed a typical full title to one of The Bard's plays. They would, however, have worn through the world's entire stock of typewriters several times over.

The one I like best is from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, involving side-effects of the Infinite Improbability Drive. Arthur says querulously, "Ford? There's an infinite number of monkeys outside who'd like to discuss a script for Hamlet that they've written".

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post