MentalFrog wrote:
Singdall wrote:
The One and Only Frakkor wrote:
Your tirade against Microsoft and Sony is so cute Singall!
/*hugglez*
yes i am 100% against Sony, and only partially against MS. I am against an OS and Browser that are more insecure then an open house without doors windows or bars filled with gold bars for anyone to pick up, yet claims to be secure and safe.
this post was to warn all of the windows users here to keep an eye on what they are doing so their system is not needlessly comprimised.
So you're biased. no im experianced with how insecure MS OSs are. all of them from 3.1 up to win2k3 and very jaded by the propossed min. system hardware requirements for Vista to be released later this year to as late as 2nd or 3rd quarter 07.
my guess it will release between 4th quarter 06 and 1st quarter 07.
anyways, here is MS stance on the reason for the release coming early. only took them a little longer then normal companies to relize this was a real problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4580852.stm
that was MS responce on the 4th. stating that customers should use the unofficial patch to fix MS broaken product and for customers to depend on 3rd party companies to fix MS products. specially as this "bug" is not major...
now for todays responce:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4587434.stm
today it is a major "bug" and needed an emergency earlyl patch to address the "bug".
ok what was differnt between the 4th and today with this "bug?" nothing. it is the same exact problem. the only differance is MS saw that a 3rd party was able to respond and FIX the bug faster and more efficiently then MS could them self. That and all of the bad PR from the media about MS NOT doing anything about it until their normal monthlyl release of "security updates".
it is actions like that from MS are why i am not happy with their lies and FUD.