On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:39:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more
>   things
> the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?

It is, but AIUI, the original concept was that the system should be open 
by default (I understand that was a design requirement that Gates put in 
place).  Then they discovered that a default "allow" security policy was 
bad, so they started retrofitting.

The thing that I find somewhat ironic is that piracy (which I don't 
condone) is part of the reason that Windows is predominant on the desktop 
these days.  It's far from the only reason, but people wanted Windows but 
didn't want to pay for it, so they borrowed copies of it back in the days 
when DOS shipped with machines and pre-installation was something that 
was generally not done.

MS' answer to that growth is to make it more difficult to pirate.  I 
think it would be interesting if they made Windows *free* (as in 0 cost 
to the consumer) and allowed it to be copied.

Jim

Post a reply to this message