Microsoft's Most Successful Failure 354
m4dm4n writes "As we near the end of mainstream support of Win2k The Register looks back at what it has achieved. What was meant to be Microsoft's most secure OS ever turned into a disaster. Worm after worm changed the face of internet security in Win2k's first 2 years. Five years down the line the battle is far from won, but the improvements are dramatic." From the article: "Things were different in the year 2000. Programmers felt vindicated that the Y2K bug didn't turn out to be that big of a deal. We made it past January 1st, and then it was time to move on. Windows 2000 came out that first quarter, just as security was becoming more interesting to more people -- and Windows was a good place to start. It was also seemed to be the start of a new breed of Windows hackers."
say what you want... (Score:5, Interesting)
Failure -- A bit harsh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Win2k, a failure? (Score:5, Interesting)
It was successfull, kind of... (Score:5, Interesting)
Security became a joke, but stability was superb.
It was a gigantic leap from the 9x series.
Cheers,
Adolfo
Re:oldie but a goodie (Score:1, Interesting)
Sad when jokes become reality. . .
Re:2k was excellent except for one thing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
My boss and I were talking a week or so back, and we were talking about taking a bunch of our libraries and somehow making them into something we can use everywhere. Now realize that we, unfortunatly, have about 200 applications to maintain, across Visual Basic, Delphi, Java, C++ in many flavors (Borland and MS are the majority) and a slew of other crap, including some VB scripts.
Now, obviously, a plain DLL isn't going to cut it... VB would be a pain in the arse to translate all of the declares to, and Java would need something similar to use a native library.
This IS where ActiveX control/libraries come in. And thanks to even automation, I can EVEN use said libraries in the windows scripts via a magical CreateObject.
The nightmare of using ActiveX controls on a webpage shouldnt blur the actual usefulness of the technology possibly elsewhere.
Re:Failure -- A bit harsh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:where would we be.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it annoy you to no end if I explained that you've just described the segmented memory model that has been available on the 386 and up since 1986? It just so happens that today's "Modern OSes" (right load of bull that is) map only two memory segments, then completely ignore the GDT, LDT, and TSS after that? It is, of course, done all in the name of "Performance", the mini-god for which many a programmer has sacrificed his first born for, but has never actually managed to show that this "performance" was worth it.
<sarcasm>But wait, we must claim that Java is slow in order to appease this mini-god! </sarcasm>
Re:2k was excellent except for one thing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people who bash ActiveX controls haven't really been in enterprise development environments where they have used them.
While their security aspect is a bad thing, they're quite useful in their own way.
Some thoughts on Microsoft and Pintos (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:say what you want... (Score:1, Interesting)
And then it doesn't constantly crash and it's security isn't totally laughable. Oh.. and with Linux there is no company hell bent on profiting at your expense. Wait until Microsoft totally screws you and then try to figure out why so many people hate them. I've certainly seen more than one person reduced to tears after trying to talk to their customer or tech support.
Linux certainly has it's problems but it's really a whole different universe than Windows for putting users through torment. Linux is usually a case of you don't know how. Windows is a case of no you can't do that or you can (maybe) but you'll suffer for trying. The only really good thing about Windows is that nearly all hardware and software works with it (supposedly.. often they claim to work but don't).. which has nothing to do with the OS itself.
That whole story is a myth (Score:4, Interesting)
Before Win2k, reliability was what everybody complained about, blue screens of death, constant crashing, runing out of resources, that sort of thing.
Microsoft listened, claimed reliability was their priority, and eventually released Win2k which fixed all of those problems. Win2k has crashed on me all of 3 times while using it both at work and at home for nearly five years, twice due to worn out CPU fans, and once due to hard drive failure. So while my experience is anecdotal I must say Win2k was an incredible success - more than I thought was possible from that company, it certainly changed my view of Microsoft.
Fast forward a few years (2002 - 2003ish), BSODs are now a thing of the past, leaving the increasing viruses and malware as the #1 headache on Windows.
Microsoft listens, claims security is now their #1 priority...
Will their security push be as effective as their stability push? only time will tell, but after the magic they worked with Win2k I'm no longer putting it above them.
Personally I care little, Windows boxes I've had connected to the internet for years without a virus checker are still clean. It appears Windows viruses so far have been limited to inexperienced users and boxes that aren't behind a proper firewall.
Lessons Learned - a paraphrase. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft execs - remember you have a fiduciary responsiblity to shareholders to do what's in the shareholder interest. Clearly your newfound obsession with security hype is not playing to your strenghts, and forcing you to play in a market where you're clearly outclassed (linux/bsd). Microsoft, as a shareholder, I'm begging you do go back to your previous policies of balancing Time-to-Market vs Security in a way that plays to your strengths and maximizes your profits and my stock value.
Re:Lessons Learned - a paraphrase. (Score:3, Interesting)
Credit card companies manage it well -- it's not too hard to steal a credit card - but it's not too hard to use them either. They balance these decisions very carefully.
Car companies also balance many things against security in their products - including fuel economy (heavier cars are safer) and convenience (4-point seat belts are rare in consumer cars).
Microsoft should do the same thing. They had a nice big niche - almost certainly the sweet spot in the market - back when they were cranking out gaming-OS's. Trying to reposition themselves to pretend they're a competitive server OS when you already have very strong and low cost players in that space is just stupid. They really need to just step back and look at what part of the market can they compete in profitably, and focus on that. If they answer the questions honestly, I bet they take a pass on servers; and go back to being the friendliest video-game platform that they were with Win98.
Your suggestion that security is practically the only goal above all others would make cars cost $100000 and too expensive for anyone to drive; and it'd make e-commerce impossible. Surely you wouldn't want that.
Re:Learning Experience (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't build a monopoly without producing something a lot of people will come along and buy.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)