Microsoft Windows Built-in Items (IE, etc): Should they be there?

[Iowa]

My God Man, what sort of freaky freak are you?

Firstly, Crappy Firewall? Did it say it comes with a Firewall? Windows doesn not at any point say it comes with a Firewall for one simple reason. McAfee are in league with Microsoft, and so Microsoft are not going to pack something superior into their package instead of allowing people to buy there own product. Also, a Firewall and Anti-Virus Protection would be expensive - and hike the price of Windows up even if only by a little. The Firewall on Windows is enough to keep vuiruses out until if you want a firewall you can buy a Firewall - or indeed join MSN and get McAfee Firewall and Virus Checker Free, along with other great features!
Microsoft have to see what we're doing, so that they can get us what we want next time. And what's wrong with that? What do you have to hide?

Secondly, Security breaches are created by Hackers, Hackers are always going to be abkle to find a hole in a system however well built - and not only that, but Linux-Folk who work on the Windows Systems to pay their Linux addiction are the worst thing to happen to Microsoft, and I seriously believe that they make holes so they can hack into them. They can also find bugs easily, being in the design process, and as we all know, sad Linux-Folk are the basis of Hackers.

Thirdly, as I previously said, it is Linux-Folk who make the greatest amount of Viruses - this is because they are terribly lazy and have nothing else to do with themselves. Because they are Linux-Folk they're not going to make Viruses for Linux, so they make them for Windows. Also, by users there are more Viruses on LInux than there are on Windows by far. And, the Windows Users who make Viruses will allmake them for Windows - because there's hardly anyone to annoy if you make one for Linux!

Fourthly, about 1% of people who have Windows have brought a Windows Box Package to upgrade their computer. It is only when brought seperatly that a Windows Package is expensive, the other 99% of people only buy Windows when they get a new computer, and to get Linux with a new computer would be harder and indeed more expensive for the home user than Windows.

Fifthly, I have no idea what you mean by the Blue Screen, but the "Blue Screen" as I imagine you mean is only created by a Computer being to slow for what it is doing and therefore it hanging up. What does Linux do? Does it just stop?!

Sixthly, of course they are, they invented it! If you invented FAT32, then you would want some royalties just like anybody who sells something! You are a great twit for even bringing that up. And good for Microsoft, Linux need to be kicked a bit!

Seventhly, Bill Gates is not ONE of the Richest men in the world, he IS the richest man in the world! And he can, he was incharge of WIndows 3.11 and has been involved in it since then, but even he cannot write it all because its so big. The other Top Ten Richest in the world can't write an OS at all, so even if he couldn't then it wouldn't matter!

The crappy firewall - I dont have anything to hide, but i find it ridiculous that microsoft are so insecure about its users. You dont care that some dude working for Microsoft is looking at your every move?

Security holes - Indeed, however well built, you will find certain holes and exploits in OSs since they are so big. However, im sure many users find it annoying with all the viruses and breaches being found and that they have to spend there time downloading those damn Patches and Upgrades.

And of course people would make viruses for Linux. Why? Cos so many people DO use Linux, so thered be plenty of people affected by a virus for Linux. Even Microsoft are scared of Linux. Hell, even the experts running Windows.com use LINUX on there servers. Hmm.

The expense - i find this statement of yours false. Alot more than 1% of people have to spend money to buy a Windows OS. How much do you have to pay to get Linux or even Unix? Hmm. £0.

OMG, you dont know what the infamous Blue Screen is? Jeez. I was simply commenting on the somewhat lacking stability in some of Windows OSes ....

Fat32 - Im sorry, maybe everyone should agree with you. However, i dont. I (and many other "techies" that roam around PB Support) found this an attempt for Microsoft to try and break down Linux. Why? Microsoft is scared of Linux and is trying everything it can to remove the competition.

Once again, i admit that an OS like Windows is massive in its own rights. BUT, considering the competition (Linux) which seems to be more secure, more stable and better than Windows, it seems ironic that the Bossman of the lagging company (Microsoft) is the Richest man on earth. Just shows how many have been screwed by Windows. Im sure that should have Linux come out earlier than it did, many would have gone with Linux. The only reason Microsoft was so successful back in "those days", was simply because there was no other alternative OS to find. If Microsoft is better, then why do they feel the need to constantly attack Linux on Windows.com? Hmm? Like i said before, Microsoft is scared of Linux and its power in the world of computers. People are waking up, seeing the alternative OS, and are using it. Not only that, but they are happy with it.

As for your comments against me, i find you slightly arrogant. If you can not take someone disagreeing with you and having there own opinions then that is quite sad. You feel the need to call someone "a Freaky freak" and a "great twit for bringing that up" just because they have there own opinions? Im a great twit for having my own thoughts and thinking that Microsoft are milking Linux in everyway they can? And a Freaky freak? Im sorry, but i disagree. Once again, im a freak for liking Linux and agreeing with many on this planet?

I do not mind microsoft, but cmon. Open your eyes. A large number of Webmasters and hosting companies are using LINUX. Not microsoft any more. I even think that Matrix28.com is run on Linux. Even Windows.com is run on linux. Proboards.coms servers are run on Linux. Admit it. People are seeing that Linux is the better alternative. Are you gonna call them freaky freaks for liking linux?

- Rocker -

 

[David Lindon]

Don't you find that funny, windows run Linux servers!

 

[Iowa]

Don't you find that funny, windows run Linux servers!

I find it kinda sad too .... Windows hates Linux yet uses for its own Website. LOL. Though i suppose if the servers were run on Windows the site would always be down due to crashes.

 

[David Lindon]

Yep. He He.

 

[David Lindon]

Why do you have a Windows avatar and anything to do with linux?

 

[Iowa]

Meh, cos im running XP at the moment. I never got round to changing it, since you cant use Custom Avatars around here .... *cough*

 

[David Lindon]

Yes I know. To many people looking to use us a free image host.

 

[Iowa]

Cmon Dave, some of us do have hosts of our own you know ...

 

[David Lindon]

Do you. You have a site?

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

As to Linux Servers, Linux Servers may have there ups - and I have no doubt that at least some of the Microsoft.com, MSN.com, etc Servers are using Linux: the other and probably the newer ones using Windows Server.

However, we were discussing Operating Systems, not Server Systems. but, if we are now talking about Server Systems then even I must admit - as of yet the Linux Servers are superior to the Windows Systems; them being better at it with more experience.