Petition to Microsoft addressing 8

[GMan]

lehnerus2000, I was manually rooting boxes in the last century - ya, that means no script-kiddie stuff, but thanks for the lessons and the deemed mistake.

It wasn't a mistake at all because if they enabled it by default, it would have broken so many things at the time, especially for users without basic firewall knowledge, which would have been most of the population then.

Internet Connection Firewall Feature Overview

"
Q: Why doesn't Microsoft enable ICF on all connections by default?
A: We do not do this due to the potential to break basic networking scenarios ( such as file and printer sharing, multiplayer gaming, and so on). ICF was designed to be enabled on Internet connections only and currently the technology for determining whether a connection is for the Internet versus private LAN remains in early development. As this technology improves ICF may be enabled by default."


Other than that, we must remember that it is not the job of an operating system to provide security other than within its own functions. For example: Prevent buffer overflows etc...

The addition of any firewall at all, pre XP2 or not, is only a plus and nothing at all about it has been Microsoft setting up anyone to fail. As stated, it's the opposite.

And just for the record: I don't know Mr. Bott in any fashion and have never formed any type of opinion on him, because of that.

 

[lehnerus2000]

(Deleted)

Other than that, we must remember that it is not the job of an operating system to provide security other than within its own functions. For example: Prevent buffer overflows etc...

That's only true for flawless OS code (i.e. code with no possible exploits).
Since no OS is flawless (even Linux) additional protection is required.

The addition of any firewall at all, pre XP2 or not, is only a plus and nothing at all about it has been Microsoft setting up anyone to fail. As stated, it's the opposite.

You seem to be oblivious to the damage that Blaster and Sasser caused individuals and businesses.
Those incidents (and others) lead to TCI for Windows (The Bill Gates memo).
One of the first changes, was changing the default firewall setting to on.

Let's take a more recent example of weird changes designed to ensnare the unwary; "Read-only" file attribute.
Windows XP treated this attribute "correctly".
Windows 7 (and probably Vista) don't (programs do though).

I have no doubt that this change was introduced, because people complained about having to click on dialogue boxes, during mass delete/move/overwrite operations.
It was annoying to select a huge group of files, start the operation and wander off, only to discover upon your return that XP was waiting for you to click a confirmation dialogue.

 

[GMan]

It doesn't seem like you understand that Microsoft had to wait until they developed Windows Firewall so it can be enabled by default.

Malware has never been, is not now and will not be in the future a problem of Microsoft. Their only responsibility to customers is to patch any known exploits.

I don't consider ICF a firewall. A firewall protects against all communications on the local area network as well as the internet.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Fair enough

Malware has never been, is not now and will not be in the future a problem of Microsoft. Their only responsibility to customers is to patch any known exploits.

I don't consider ICF a firewall. A firewall protects against all communications on the local area network as well as the internet.

Fair enough.
Many other people have also said that.
It was never "corporate grade".

I consider that explanation (from MS) to be self-serving (just like no-one uses the "Start Menu").
IMO, it was an attempt to justify a poor decision.

The XP firewall wasn't difficult to use or configure.
I ran PCTools firewall for a while and it was like a network version of the Vista UAC.
Whenever you tried to access the network, it would complain (on the highest security level).

The real reason was that they thought people would complain.
That's why the XP defaults were all set to allow, instead of deny (i.e. the opposite of Linux).

That's why XP was (or is) popular (it was easy to use).
If you wanted to do something, XP would let you do it without complaint.
This also meant that anyone else could also do whatever they liked (once they got access).

It also explains the stream of complaints about UAC (in Vista mostly).
People were used to doing whatever they wanted, without the OS complaining and/or demanding authorization.

People complain about not being allowed to (directly) access the system area in Windows 7.

 

[legacy7955]

Sure desktop sales are stagnant but then again EVERY style of personal computing device vehicle has periods of growth and stagnation, including phones, and laptops.

The fact is that as long as their is the enterprise environment there will be desktops billions of them. They are NOT going away anytime soon.

MS can desire to sway people away from the DT all they want but it won't significantly alter it.

MS needs to offer the customer a choice of which UI they want as the default on each and every boot.
Not force that Metro stuff. All this will result in is animosity on the part of current and potential customers of Windows 8 and any subsequent offerings by MS in the future.

MS is going to alienate customers by the hundreds of millions with this move. Ill will on a massive scale causes companies to go out of business. You hear that Ballmer?

 

[Vince53]

Legacy, your facts are correct, but there's another problem. The enterprise environment keeps their computers and operating systems for a long time. Windows XP still works fine in the office, and so do the computers that run it. Therefor, they don't buy new copies of Windows as often, and they are not as profitable as home users.

 

[WindowsStar]

I vote for being able to turn on/off Metro IU, when off it is like the Windows 7 UI. That gives us the best of both worlds. -WS