backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by Wiggy Mcshades.. on Jul 23 at 11:12 AM


Microsoft's Kevin Turner
Perhaps you could say that implies that Microsoft thinks Apple will rebound from problems?

In the realm of bold statements, you might expect Microsoft's vocal and boisterous CEO Steve Ballmer to be sounding off.  But instead it was mustachioed chief operating officer Kevin Turner who was playing the axman leveling a wild statement against one of Microsoft's chief rivals.

Speaking about the Windows Phone 7 series, which will be released over the holiday season, Turner remarked, "It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that."

The remark was not first time Microsoft admitted that Vista -- which never passed its predecessor Windows XP and was swiftly passed by its successor Windows 7 -- was far from a success.  Ballmer had previously bemoaned that Vista was "not executed well."

It is also unsurprising that the iPhone 4 would be receiving criticism.  From Apple's arrogant approach to antenna issues (it's all in your head -- the phone is just drawing the signal bars wrong) which yielded a new class action suit, to proximity sensor issues, the iPhone 4 is coming under increased scrutiny.  Even the typically pro-Apple 
Consumer Reports, despite offering overall praise for the phone's hardware, said it could not recommend it because of the severe antenna problems.

What is perhaps surprising is that Microsoft would be the one to criticize Apple's phone debacle.  Microsoft just had its own phone bungle when its 2-year long Kin project (stemming from the $500M+ USD Danger acquisition) ended after two months in a train wreck.  Estimates indicate that just over 8,000 Kin phones were sold.  Much of the reason for the failure was reportedly due to Microsoft's insistence that Danger port its code to Windows CE.

Furthermore, Microsoft has even shown close to showing admiration for its rival's success in the smartphone sphere.  It has said that it is "following in Apple's line" in releasing a feature incomplete phone (in its opinion) early, and then filling in the holes.  It is also embracing Apple's approach of censoring adult materials, and even joined in the criticism of Adobe's Flash platform.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/14/2010 6:55:29 PM , Rating: -1
No, the problem was intrinsic to Vista. Vista changed the basic user paradigm for Windows. Instead of the user running everything with root privileges, users could only run software as a non-privileged user. Up to that point, all Windows software was written with the assumption it would be run as root (sorry, 'admin' in Windows-speak). So when Vista came out, a lot of that software broke.

Microsoft tried to blame 3rd party software for the problem, but businesses weren't about to rewrite a decade worth of legacy code just because Microsoft said they should. So Vista was never adopted by businesses at large.

With Windows 7, they've scaled back some of the security (too bad too), and implemented an XP compatibility mode on business versions. That lets you run a program in an XP virtual machine, thus allowing the old insecure security model to coexist with the current security model. Funny how that works - that's essentially the same solution they used to allow DOS programs to run inside an OS/2 or Windows box back in the early 1990s.


RE: Vista?
By seamonkey79 on 7/14/2010 8:13:38 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I find it ironic that the biggest 'problem' with Vista is that it broke software because the OS functioned much like Linux and Unix based OS's have since forever.


RE: Vista?
By inighthawki on 7/14/2010 8:20:59 PM , Rating: 4
No, hate to say it but this is one of those occasions where "everyone else" was wrong. No app developer should have designed the application to run in admin mode in the first place. This is by NO means Vista's fault for upping security. If you don't program properly/securely you can't blame it on the OS developer when they enforce that behavior.


RE: Vista?
By chemist1 on 7/14/2010 10:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with inighthawki that MS was right to up security, and enforce that. Lord knows they needed it. But let's not let MS off the hook here and blame the developers. Until Vista, Windows operating systems were designed to have applications that were written for them run using root privileges (which was precisely the truck-sized security hole they decided to fix with Vista).

Incidentally, this is one of the key reasons OSX has had superior security to Windows (those who argue that it's simply security via low market share notwithstanding): OSX, like (as I understand it) all Unix and Linux-based operating systems, is designed for applications to be installed without root privileges, thus minimizing the damage that a malicious application can inflict. [Yes, there are rare applications, like Fink, that require root privileges on OSX--but, in requiring such, they force the user to set a root password, etc.; i.e., the user is unlikely to be tricked into installing malicious software that requires root privileges on OSX, unlike Windows XP where, by default, all apps were accorded it.]


RE: Vista?
By noirsoft on 7/14/2010 11:15:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But let's not let MS off the hook here and blame the developers


Given that Microsoft told developers before XP came out to stop relying on admin access to things and to fully test their software in a limited user account, and also informed them that in the OS after XP, such limitations would be fully enforced, I believe it is 100% reasonable to blame 3rd party developers for failing to have their software work under Vista properly.


RE: Vista?
By chemist1 on 7/15/2010 12:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
quoting: "I believe it is 100% reasonable to blame 3rd party developers for failing to have their software work under Vista properly."

I agree with you. But I was referring not to the Vista-not-working-with-apps issue (which is of course the app developer's fault if they require admin privs.), but rather the security issue. I was unaware that MS also warned developers not to use admin priv. for XP, so thanks for that info.

So, I'd modify my statement to read as follows: Let's not let MS off the hook for security issues, with its earlier operating systems, resulting from the easy access to admin. priv. by application software---since, historically, until Vista, they allowed that access, which is something they never should have permitted from the start.


RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/15/2010 6:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, that's kinda long so let me summarize: There's "where do we want to go?" and "how do we get there?". I completely agree with the folks here saying that Vista's security model was a good answer to "where do we want to go?". Where Vista failed was in the "how do we get there?".


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki