These articles need more proofing, as rosanjin states above. Another correction needed for "covers all the basis".
I find the news of a large tech company removing Microsoft Windows from the desktop very interesting. It's been known for a long time that the total cost of ownership is a big issue for corporations. If you can deploy and support an alternative which reduces your TCO year over year that turns into more revenue for your company.
Microsoft made major inroads into corporate desktops through providing a lower TCO many years ago. I think it has flipped on them and they stand to lose ground in the coming years.
They should use linux or some other open source os.
When you find a hole, you can patch it and spread the patched source, so everybody benefits from it.
With both macos and windows, you just CANNOT do that.
The fact that Google aren't using Chrome is a pretty big indicator of how limited it is as an OS. Google are smart enough to know that Chrome can't do 3/4 of the stuff that Windows or OSX can, despite all the yapping and yawing they've done over it in the press.
Windows security is built on layers of compatibility which makes the OS slow and consumes more resources (RAM, CPU, etc.). This is the price of trying to be compatibile with everything you can toss in a PC over the past 30 years. The compatibility layers are huge security holes and is the reason why Windows 7 (and Vista and XP) have 5-10 security updates every week of every year the OS implemented Windows Update services.
If Microsoft want to move forward and be able to financially keep up with Apple, they NEED to start from a fresh OS slate and toss compatibility out the window. Ground up build of an OS is LONG LONG LONG overdue at Microsoft. If people need to live in the past and retain compatibility with their existing games/applications, then Dual Boot and VM (Virtual Machine) have been around a long time and work VERY well. This is the lesson Microsoft seem unwilling or unable to learn ... it maybe too late given Google's fresh slate OS due out soon.
It's sad to see what Ballmer has done to Microsoft, his lack of vision has left them behind Apple financially and a huge Giant like Goolge is about to release a new secure OS on the world and what is Microsoft trying to do ... come up with Tablet OS to take on iPad. Shakes head, Ballmer just doesn't get it.
Ballmer rode the "leverage" wave for a long time, now that the wave has finally hit the shore he's got nothing.
I've been around the Windows blogs since they first came out with Vista RC 1. Unfortunately, in recent years the commenters there are more and more Windows haters, much more so than there are Mac haters here.
" "When it comes to security, even hackers admit we’re doing a better job making our products more secure than anyone else," he said, referring to Marc Maiffret, chief security architect at FireEye (Pwn2Own hacking winner says otherwise)"
I read the linked article and I don't see where Charlie Miller "says otherwise". At the end of the article, he clearly says that Apple is less secure than Windows.
Well, the MS guy has a point - they *have* made the biggest strides over the last decade security-wise. Of course, it helps that they started with a system that was a hyper-insecure POS that could get infected with a keylogger from a user mistyping a domain name. From there, *every* improvement in security is a huge leap!
[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]So... Security by obscurity works? [¬_¬][/citation]
Historically it's been more secure, until the obscurity doesn't exist any more. Chrome will be open source which removes the obscurity faster than just releasing the software in binary form to the public. We'll see how long it takes for an exploit of Chrome OS later this year.
It makes sense for a company like Google to ditch Windows. Why pay for an OS when they are striving to be completely OS-independent? In Google's ideal future, you only need a web browser. I'm sure Google already has plenty of linux-saavy people to keep their systems running (thus, no basis to Microsoft's claim that Linux is more expensive).
The only problem is the report that they plan to move to Mac OS. There's no security reason to switch, and once hackers know Google is using Mac OS, they'll just target their attacks for that OS's vulnerabilities.
[citation][nom]Trueno07[/nom]"The heart of the issue seems to be that most employees don't know the entire corporate scope, and simply enjoy ruffling a few Microsoft fathers."So Microsoft has... More than one dad?[/citation]
I think you just opened up a can of worms with that one.