Android-Apple-Microsoft
Looking to get a tablet for the wife and am not sure which way to go. I see many Android tablets that look fairly decent but haven't tried any. I used an Apple for a while but found the operating sy...
Forum Discussion
My only issue with Windows is that every single computer with any version of Windows ALWAYS gets malware. Yes, they have 94% of the market. But they get 100% of the infections. As far as "easy to use" that's only once you re-learn all the things MS changed from one iteration to the next in every single product. If they don't change things then they can't charge people for taking the certification exams.
Worse yet, MS cannot make their OS secure. If they could, they'd have done it already instead of producing add-on utilities just like McAfee, et. al. Why would the company that developed Windows have to produce an add-on product (which does not come with Windows... you have to download it free) to fix its security problems? Why couldn't MS - with access, after all, to the source code and the APIs - just fix the OS? The answer, my friends, is that MS cannot fix it without breaking it and requiring all the developers to re-write their applications from scratch. Something Apple did a long time ago with OS-X.
Malwarebytes, in its present iteration, can be installed by a download onto every version of Windows from XP to 8.1 and work exactly the same way; finding exactly the same malware. It's that "backwards compatibility" that exacerbates the existing built-in security flaws of the MS operating systems.
The same thing goes for SpybotSD. And other scanners. The only reason they need "updates" is to add data for new malware. They don't need any updates to be suitable for all iterations of Windows from XP to 8.1; not even for 64bit versions.
Now, someone is going to post, "Windows has most of the market so it's natural that it would get most of the attacks." This is hogwash. I have a dozen Linux/Unix servers with static IP addresses that get attacked thousands of times every hour (I can post the logs if you want) yet do not ever get "infected". But a Windows computer, behind a firewall and loaded with anti-virus protection will still have to be "scanned" once a week to remove malware. Windows machines don't get most of the attacks... but they get most of the ones that succeed.
If you want to use Windows that's fine by me. I get a fair bit of income every year just fixing the inevitable security issues. Just don't claim that it's as dependable or secure as *nix based operating systems. Because it is clearly not. And I have a hard time figuring out why corporate America puts up with it.
/rant
Craig :)
Worse yet, MS cannot make their OS secure. If they could, they'd have done it already instead of producing add-on utilities just like McAfee, et. al. Why would the company that developed Windows have to produce an add-on product (which does not come with Windows... you have to download it free) to fix its security problems? Why couldn't MS - with access, after all, to the source code and the APIs - just fix the OS? The answer, my friends, is that MS cannot fix it without breaking it and requiring all the developers to re-write their applications from scratch. Something Apple did a long time ago with OS-X.
Malwarebytes, in its present iteration, can be installed by a download onto every version of Windows from XP to 8.1 and work exactly the same way; finding exactly the same malware. It's that "backwards compatibility" that exacerbates the existing built-in security flaws of the MS operating systems.
The same thing goes for SpybotSD. And other scanners. The only reason they need "updates" is to add data for new malware. They don't need any updates to be suitable for all iterations of Windows from XP to 8.1; not even for 64bit versions.
Now, someone is going to post, "Windows has most of the market so it's natural that it would get most of the attacks." This is hogwash. I have a dozen Linux/Unix servers with static IP addresses that get attacked thousands of times every hour (I can post the logs if you want) yet do not ever get "infected". But a Windows computer, behind a firewall and loaded with anti-virus protection will still have to be "scanned" once a week to remove malware. Windows machines don't get most of the attacks... but they get most of the ones that succeed.
If you want to use Windows that's fine by me. I get a fair bit of income every year just fixing the inevitable security issues. Just don't claim that it's as dependable or secure as *nix based operating systems. Because it is clearly not. And I have a hard time figuring out why corporate America puts up with it.
/rant
Craig :)
