Microsoft launches security for Windows

we shouldnt have to pay microsoft for something that should allready be there,they have the most unsecure system OS there is that is why I use linx<ubuntu linux to be exact>

It's the ultimate business scam. Produce an inherently flawed product and then charge extra to repair it. Brilliant! You go M$! Keep up the fleece job on a captive public often unable to escape your POS product.

Imagine if GM were to do something like that? Oh wait - I think they already do except at least GM offers a free warranty their crap for the first 36k miles. Too bad computer OSs aren't subject to lemon laws like most other products...

sowhat wrote:

It's the ultimate business scam. Produce an inherently flawed product and then charge extra to repair it. Brilliant! You go M$! Keep up the fleece job on a captive public often unable to escape your POS product.
Imagine if GM were to do something like that? Oh wait - I think they already do except at least GM offers a free warranty their crap for the first 36k miles. Too bad computer OSs aren't subject to lemon laws like most other products...

Agreed, why didn't I think of this? It is sad to turn on my computer only to see that I have to update yet another security flaw of Microsoft. Maybe this is a testament to America's quality ethic or tolerance of it.

After I developed a research virus ( for demonstrating a problem with pattern matching which was reported to be infallible, at that time ( 1992 )), was called v2 or 126x. Within a few months, Bill Gates hired me, through a second party, to work as a document management technolgy expert.

I spent several years developing a security TSR for DOS and Windows 3.1..( ref: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/mawcowboy/examp... ), Myself and others proved fairly well that virus and Trojans could be stopped dead in their tracks. Bill Gates wasn't interested.

15 years later, after reports of billions of dollars lost to virus and Trojan programs, now they are going to sell the public security.

In an alternative direction, in 1996, I sent a computer chip formula to Washington, only to recieve a not interested reply from Bill Gates.( VLIW SMP MPP FORTH) I guestimated about ten to one hundred times the performance of Intel's best. This is an architectural design difference, that is constant no matter what fabrication technology Intel may come up with. About two weeks ago,( ten years after Washington was told about VLIW SMP MPP FORTH,) Intellasys ( http://www.intellasys.net ), released an SMP MPP FORTH chip that reports about two hundred times the performance of an Intel.( even at a sixty percent efficiency, that is still more than one hundred times the performance potential than Intel will sell you.)

Anyone want to play Tri-opoly, a IBM/Intel/M$ monopolism game?