Print 94 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on Dec 29 at 1:55 PM

There's also nary a mention about Microsoft's pro-security switch to a walled garden model

Online newspaper Inc. has published a pretty interesting account ripping into Windows RT, which it calls "Doomed".  The author, Geoffrey James, has a big warning to business -- "inherently unstable and insecure."

The author lauds Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPad as the new paradigm of glorious computing and security, while lashing Microsoft, writing:

I used to work in an operating system development group. One thing I learned back then is that any OS that allows applications to modify the OS will be inherently unstable and insecure.

Since Windows is designed to allow that to happen, both computer viruses and the gradual "rot" of the software installed on a Windows system are both inevitable. There is no way to fix the problem because it's inherent in Windows's design.
I'm a case in point. While I'm still using a Windows machine for most of my writing, I'm serious thinking of "taking the leap" to only using my iPad simply to avoid the support headaches that are inevitable with Windows.

In short, the Surface is doomed because the entire concept behind it is flawed. Even plain Windows is getting so old and creaky that it's getting to be more a bother than its worth.

But the columnist misses (or at least never mentions) that the device he targets in the byline (Surface) is currently only being sold with Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) Windows RT (Surface Pro -- the x86 version -- isn't expected until next month).  And not a single piece of traditional Windows malware can run on Windows RT without recompilation, as it runs on a fundamentally different architecture/instruction set (ARM) versus past versions of Windows (x86).

Surface RT can't run traditional x86 malware.
In other words, the columnist's negative experience of getting his laptop penetrated by a "root kit" is drastically less likely to occur in Windows RT, particularly while it enjoys such a peachy (from a security perspective) low market share, compared to traditional Windows.

Another thing the columnist seems to miss is that both Windows 8 and Windows RT Microsoft offer perhaps the biggest pro-security (but anti-openness) shift that has helped protect the iPad -- the switch to primarily using a "walled garden" model of software distribution.  In Windows 8 you primarily buy apps through Windows Store.  Microsoft verifies each of these apps and can yank any app at any time if it is later discovered to pose some sort of security risk.

Windows Store
Microsoft now uses a similar pro-security "walled garden" model as Apple, pushing certified-safe apps from the Windows Store. [Image Source: ZDNet]

Granted, Microsoft does practice a laissez-faire policy regarding Windows 7 legacy software (which won't run on Windows RT, but will generally run on Windows 8) and plug-in based distribution models, such as the Java-based Valve client.  In this regard it differs from Apple who strictly prohibits such freedoms. But increasingly from here on out users will be getting their apps from a single secure source -- Microsoft.

Additionally, the apps in Windows 8 are nicely sandboxed.  They simply are not allowed to "modify the OS" as the author suggest.  Windows 8 and Windows RT have robust protection against traditional attack vectors like memory injection, protections that rival those in the OS X tree.

Some criticisms of Windows 8 have been more level-handed pointing out perfectly valid opinions that many share about places the ambitious user interface redesign may have gone too far.  But some criticisms -- such as the argument to buy an iPad instead of a Surface RT because Windows is "unstable and insecure" -- are simply bizarre to the point where they almost appear to be a comedic caricature of misconceptions surrounding the Windows platform.

Source: Inc.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: You have to ask
By Breakfast Susej on 12/4/2012 6:00:13 PM , Rating: 3
Really that just makes it worse. If I have to download third party software to mask the poor experience I am simply not going to bother and continue to use seven.

The thing is, I like seven, a lot, it's really pretty great and leaves me wanting for nothing. I have always been for trying a new OS to see what it offers that is new and move forward. If what it offers is uninteresting, and I have to install third party apps to retrograde the interface, it makes me even more displeased with the thought of using it.

Windows 8 may be fine for others, but for me every step of it's involves some kind of compromise, resulting in a hacked together and ultimately unsatisfying experience. For the first time since 1995 my answer to the latest version of Windows will remain, pass thank you.

RE: You have to ask
By MrRuckus on 12/6/2012 2:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Have you tried it? My profession requires me to be familiar with most of the new tech, so I fired up my technet subscription and downloaded Win8. Win8 out of the box is different, but as others have stated, you can get passed that with a simple 3rd party app. While it may inconvenience you for 5mins to install it, after that its all done. At that point its 90% the same as Windows 7. You get the start menu back and all the things you are use to. You can also switch to metro and mess with it as you wish to learn it at your convenience. I picked up Star8 from Stardock which was a whopping $5. The interface runs as smooth as Windows 7, I see no difference. The only difference is the Start button is shaped as a little windows symbol instead of the windows circle in Win7.

It took me all of 5 mins to get Windows 8 the way I wanted it.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki