It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

microsoft and xbox

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Hi warp, I totally agree that the motor trade have a patchy past with design faults etc and I sometimes wonder where we would be if we didn't have the safety conscious Swedes to keep us right and embarass the conglomorates into action.

Also there are too many individual parts involved in the sale and servicing of our vehicles. Too many creaming what they can from us poor motorists.

Well that's my gripe for the day!!

J




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lardo5150
I could be WAY off, but it just seems so strange that this software is constantly being taken apart. Why not take an extra year and slam this stuff, like windows, so that it hold up to anything you throw at it. I understand once it hits the outside world you will have all kinds of stuff thrown at it, but there should not be that many flaws.

If somone is more in tune to this, please feel free to add. I have always wondered about this.


I'm sure that some software companies, if they could, would test their products 100%. The problem is that this just isn't possible. Even though I dislike the fact that Microsoft's Windows operating system has a seemingly endless supply of security flaws, I don't believe that all of them are Microsoft's fault or due to an insufficient amount of testing. Reason being is that there is absolutely no way to know what hackers will find or to what lengths they will go to exploit a flaw. Usually, it's an exploit of a function that was genuinely intended to be helpful to the end user, but instead people chose to find "bad" uses for it. A good example would be the Windows Messenger Service that came with XP, you may have seen the VERY annoying popups from it if you are using an unfirewalled connection. A more recent example would be the Windows metafile flaw, Microsoft originally had the capability for executable code to exist within it to enable printing to be cancelled after it started (or something like that, forget what I read). It's not like Microsoft ever intended of wanting security of its users to be compromised, though it may seem that way sometimes, it's just that there's no way to test for everything before it's shipped, especially when it comes to software and hackers.

About computer hardware, I have only ever had one thing stop functioning right after the warranty ran out and that is a Maxtor hard drive which failed just this month. It failed exactly 1 1/2 months after the warranty expired and was the only hard drive I've ever had fail on me as a result of normal use and I have hard drives and other equipment from the DOS era yet that still work (perhaps I'm just lucky?). I've never had any problems with other computer component failure either. In fact, I still have a Tandy 1000SL with all the original parts in perfect working condition! I'm positive that the warranty on that has been long expired, and it still works fine.

As far as planned obsolescence goes, I can see how it would be a good thing as well as a bad thing. For example, comapanies dropping support for their older software. This can be a good thing because it encourages people to upgrade to the newest version, possibly adding security enhancements along with other features. However, I can also see how it becomes a bad thing when people start to think that they could just implement the newer features into the existing version via a patch or whatnot instead of having to pay for a newer version. So, perhaps, what has to be done (or what is being done) is finding a medium between those two extremes.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
UnknownOrigins, I agree the security flaws were probably not intended nor could they have easily been preventable, but I also wonder how much MS and software companies really test stuff and to what length. You said that there is no way to know what hackers will do or what length they will go to. I beg to differ; because if they really wanted to insure security they could hire hackers to break stuff before it ships so they can fix it, or they could release the software to the hacking community before the mainstream and offer financial rewards to people who find flaws, holes etc.. which some companies have done. I think some of the AV firms offer rewards for people who find 0 day exploits and release them to the AV firm instead of the masses. I also find it somewhat appalling how for the longest time there has really been no recourse to the software companies for releasing faulty products. If an auto company or any other manufacturer for that matter built a car or machine that had half the issues some pieces of software do they would have to recall and it, and correct it or refund peoples money.

I know tehy do plan to make things obsolete which can be good, but thats not what I was talking about. Back to my orginal post in this thread about how MS developers were instructed to make things "not" backward compatible to force people into upgrading is pretty shady if you ask me, and I think most would agree.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I dont think that Microsoft is evil at all. I think that things Microsoft make brake or stop working for money. If People liked the product wile it worked They will most likely get it again. That way they can rake in more money. Although I do think that The Xbox and other things they make do not last as long as they should!



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join