Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Microsoft Says "War on Terror" is Overblown 666

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the also-sugar-is-sweet dept.
SlinkySausage writes "The endless security measures imposed on society as a result of the "war on terror" have become overblown and intrusive, according to Microsoft Redmond senior security analyst Steve Riley. He made the comments in a talk at day one of Tech.Ed Australia about software security. Riley also fessed up that Microsoft cocked up XP from a security perspective. "We let you down with XP," he said. Microsoft also showed a very interesting new desktop virtualisation technology called SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Says "War on Terror" is Overblown

Comments Filter:
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:10PM (#20157857) Journal
    I'm kinda glad that MS gets to feel the pain of "overblown and intrusive" security. Maybe they will understand that it is better to make things secure from the beginning, rather than overacting after the fact.
    From TFA:

    Steve's approach to security spans all horizons, not just information technology. He elaborated on this theory in an afternoon session today at Microsoft Tech.Ed entitled "Making the Tradeoff: Be Secure or Get Work Done".
    You are trying to get work done. Allow or Deny?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:31PM (#20158155)
      From TFA:

      "It's measured against the current cost of leaving things as they are - if a couple of machines go down every week because of security vulnerabilities, that is a cost which can be measured and taken into consideration. However, if the cost is actually less than the cost of removing the problem , bizarre as it may sound, it might not actually be worth it."

      Hmmmm.... Maybe Microsoft really does understand why I refuse to intsall Vista on my network.

      • by utopianfiat (774016) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:48PM (#20158457) Journal
        Agreed.

        Moreover, if one machine goes down due to security vulnerabilities, and it has my social security number on it...
        • SoftGrid? Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bussdriver (620565) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @06:20PM (#20163187)
          Virtual machines per application?
          So next they will want to save RAM and speed things up with pass-thru hooks like what is already done with the virtual network interfaces but taken to the next level... It seems like a bad progression towards an actually working OS... How about we get the OS to WORK with the memory protection and better manage abstracted hardware??

          Am I the only one who sees virtual machines as a solution to problems that mostly shouldn't exist or at least not to the severity that one would seriously consider that a solution?
    • by twitter (104583)

      I love that false choice. If you have to chose between the two, you don't have either.

    • by seyyah (986027) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @01:16PM (#20158919)
      because I just found myself agreeing with Microsoft ...
  • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) * on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:10PM (#20157859) Homepage Journal
    Too bad you have to read him - not see him in person.

    Oh, and a pity he makes the fron page at Slashdot for stating the obvious!
    • He's giving a lecture called [slashdot.org]:

      Making the Tradeoff: Be Secure or Get Work Done.

      With reasonable design choices, I get both. With sftp and konqueror, I can transfer files without worry. With real user and process separation, I can do a lot of other things without fear. If he's forced to chose between security and convenience, his system offers neither.

  • by tehwebguy (860335) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:11PM (#20157871) Homepage
    Or think Crossover: http://www.codeweavers.com/products/ [codeweavers.com]
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:18PM (#20157979) Journal

      Or think 'operating system.' That's what an operating system does. It virtualises the computer's resources and multiplexes them for applications. It multiplexes memory and gives each process its own address space. It multiplexes disk and gives each process its own virtual disks (files). It (or a userspace delegate) multiplexes video and gives each process its own virtual screen (a window or virtual terminal). It multiplexes the speakers and gives each application its own sound device (a virtual channel). It multiplexes input devices and switches them between apps.

      Everything old is new again.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by IndieKid (1061106)
      I believe Parallels [parallels.com] does this too. It let's you run MS Word 2007 on a Mac as if it were native, for example.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 0racle (667029)
        Parallels and VMware virtualize entire OS's which is exactly what the summary said they are not talking about.
    • by jandrese (485)
      I was thinking it was more like "Jails" on the BSD platforms. You're not really virtualized, you just have your access to everything cut off unless it is explicitly enabled. Virtualization would work, but the performance penalty discourages people from using it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Paracelcus (151056)
      WINE?
      Uhh, I thought we were already virtualizing applications with "http://www.winehq.org/"
  • by Ckwop (707653) * <Simon.Johnson@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:12PM (#20157881) Homepage

    In the United Kingdom we lost fifty or so people in the carnage of bombings last-year, in the United States you lost four or so thousand.

    I don't for a second want to say that the loss of these lives through an unspeakable act of senseless violence is a trivial matter, but we need to put these figures in perspective. In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings. In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11.

    Somebody even said to me that more people were killed putting their socks on in the United Kingdom than by terrorists last-year. It's probably true. This stuff is right in the noise level of the threats we encounter each day. It's dramatic when we see some idiots attempt to blow a car up at Glasgow airport but in terms of actual risk, these people are up there with being struck by lightning or having a bad reaction to asprin.

    So why is there talk about trading liberty for security? Even though the security vs liberty argument is as flawed as the mythical man month, the point still remains - why do I need this extra security anyway? It's expensive, it costs me my rights and it's ineffective.

    It feels like that we've forgotten what it is really like to be a nation threatend with annihilation. In the 1940s our country nearly didn't make it and we have the United States to thank for that as much as our own heroic airmen. That was a time where the agressors really could have destroyed our way of life. Yet we did not yield in the face our adversity. We held our resolve!

    And we should hold our resolve now. In comparison to the Nazis these modern day terrorists are like flies trying to stare down a tank. I don't know whether to laugh or cry why we even take them so seriously. We should not give a shred of our liberty to these people - they are pathetic and worthless; you only need to look at the Glasgow "terrorist" attack to see this for yourselves.

    Simon

    • Choose "cry". (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:21PM (#20158027)

      I don't know whether to laugh or cry why we even take them so seriously.

      Consider what we COULD be doing with the money spent on this.

      The Cold War ended. The world was as close to Peace as it has ever been. We could have been investing in so many things to help the human race as a whole.

      Instead we're spending trillions of dollars "fighting" a few thousand nutcases who can't do any more damage to the world than we do to ourselves, every year, in traffic accidents.
      • Re:Choose "cry". (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xtravar (725372) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:26PM (#20158099) Homepage Journal

        The Cold War ended. The world was as close to Peace as it has ever been. We could have been investing in so many things to help the human race as a whole.
        Hey man, the defense industry needs to eat, too! What, you expect them to go out of business in times of peace?

        And this is the problem with militarily-funded businesses. They have incentive to not have peace.
      • Re:Choose "cry". (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:57PM (#20158599) Journal
        The worst part about all of this is the lack of recognition that other parts of the world have been suffering under this very same breed of Jihadist for a lot longer than the US. Both China and Russia have been dealing with this religious nutcases for years prior to 9-11. Heck, part of the reason they're so widespread in the Muslim world is because Saudi Arabia has been exporting its maniacs so that they cease to be its problem.

        The West now only concerns itself because suddenly we're the direct targets of their actions. Those actions are wildly successful because they're so visible. The fact that automobile accidents are far more deadly, or that more people die due to choking than the terrorists could ever hope to kill is besides the point. Those aren't sexy, top-of-the-hour, bonechilling, fingernail-biting, paranoia-inducing stories.

        I have pointed out to people who think that Jihadists are getting ready to blow up their supermarket that the people of Leningrad and London put up with attacks of such intensity, such lethal effectiveness and such destruction that it makes a hole in the Pentagon and two downed office towers look like a joke.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mickwd (196449)
          "The West now only concerns itself because suddenly we're the direct targets of their actions."

          Make that "the USA" rather than "the west" - other western countries have had serious terrorism problems for years. In the UK there was the IRA and the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, and in Spain there was/is ETA, to name but two.

          Interestingly, look at this [ireland.com] story [bbc.co.uk] today - 400lb of explosives found, with a strong suspicion of links to real-live republican terrorists. Notice how little reporting there has been of th
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Paul Jakma (2677)
        Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech [msu.edu].

        "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

        Heed was not taken and arose it did..
      • Re:Choose "cry". (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Pragmatix (688158) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @03:31PM (#20161121)
        I always wonder what we could have done with the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent fighting in Iraq, if instead we spent it on alternative energy research. It always seemed like a better long term strategy to me.
    • by Himring (646324)
      You better wake up pal, and starting wrapping your house in plastic and duct tape! [local6.com]

    • by Mullen (14656)
      I don't for a second want to say that the loss of these lives through an unspeakable act of senseless violence is a trivial matter, but we need to put these figures in perspective. In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings. In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11.

      You mean, killed by guns, not killed in gun accidents. Few people are killed in gun accidents in the US an
    • It's large-scale immigration from countries that don't share British or American values. Both countries are taking in a lot of immigrants who don't want to integrate. That poses future problems for the culture in our respective countries. Even more so in Britain where it is primarily people from Islamic countries who are convinced that British culture can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

      With immigration, we have too much of a good thing. Immigration is good, but only when it is limited to people who
      • by telbij (465356) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:35PM (#20158237)
        Okay, I can't speak for Britain, but come on man, have some faith in your own culture. The only thing preventing first-generation immigrants is nostalgia, if they're old enough. However the younger generation will easily be indoctrinated into the culture quite rapidly. Especially western culture which has already proven powerful enough to invade the whole world. You know, previous generations of immigrants did not magically integrate. It takes time, but it's inevitable. Sure the old culture is subtly changed over time by this influx, but it's a good thing. Do you really want to inbreed yourselves until your eyes are all half an inch apart and your culture is as flavorless as the food you eat?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          You got it exactly right. History repeats itself again and again. Ethnic group immigrates to U.S. Nativists and bigots get frightened and claim that our culture is threatened. Ethnic group settles in and assimilates by the third generation. Repeat process. One hundred years ago it was East Asians that were the threat. Today it's Muslims (in Europe) and Latinos (in the US).
        • by Grishnakh (216268) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @03:25PM (#20161031)
          I disagree.

          It used to be this way with immigrants from Europe, etc. However, it is not this way with Islamic immigrants.

          A recent poll in Britain found that most second-generation immigrants want Sharia Law to be instituted there. This isn't the first-generation immigrants from Pakistan and elsewhere; this is their kids, who grew up in Britain. The first-generation immigrants don't seem to be causing any problems; they just want a decent life and job. Their kids are embracing the ways of radical Islam. The same thing is happening in France.

          There was a movie about this a while ago, called "My Son the Fanatic". Check it out.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tcopeland (32225)
      > In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic
      > accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings.

      Yes, but, at the risk of stating the obvious, there's a big difference between dying in an car accident and being killed by someone who blows up a train. You may as well console someone who gets mugged by saying "well, you know, people accidentally lose money every day." It's not relevant to the incident.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by n dot l (1099033)
        You've got a point there, but it doesn't justify the idiotic overreaction we've seen.

        Some guys with box cutters hijack some planes and smash them into buildings, killing thousands. Terrible tragedy, I agree, very much unlike random highway accidents. But that doesn't mean that the proper reaction to this is a direct attack on what's left of the values that made this a great culture instead of, say, securing the cockpit with a sturdy, lockable door.

        From that perspective it makes sense to compare it to accide
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rossifer (581396)

        You may as well console someone who gets mugged by saying "well, you know, people accidentally lose money every day." It's not relevant to the incident.

        But the usual response to such a crime (afraid to go out, jumping at every noise in a shadow) is just the same as our current national fear-fest, and just as self-destructive. The appropriate internal response to being mugged is to be a little upset with yourself for being in a situation where you could be mugged and learning how to avoid that situation in

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192)
        Yes, but, at the risk of stating the obvious, there's a big difference between dying in an car accident and being killed by someone who blows up a train.

        Really? What is it? Both are preventable. We should be putting our resources towards preventing as many preventable deaths as possible. Whether or not it's intentional is entirely irrelevant.
    • by rossifer (581396) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:48PM (#20158467) Journal

      In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11.
      Not to disagree with your overall argument, but this statistic is wrong. Three times 9/11 would be about 9000 accidental firearm deaths per year. According to the CDC, there are actually about 750 accidental deaths attributed to guns each year in the US (CDC Mortality Statistics [cdc.gov] - select "after 1999", then "intent -> unintentional" and "cause -> firearm"). Which is about 25% of 9/11.

      I would suggest using automobile accidents in the US as well, since it only takes about three-four weeks of US automobile fatalities (~45,000/year) to equal one 9/11.

      So why is there talk about trading liberty for security? Even though the security vs liberty argument is as flawed as the mythical man month, the point still remains - why do I need this extra security anyway? It's expensive, it costs me my rights and it's ineffective.
      Hear! Hear!

      Regards,
      Ross
    • by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:59PM (#20158645) Homepage
      Our way of life is not under threat!

      I agree it's not under threat by terrorism. But, there are several issues that should be of concern which have far greater support among muslims, including but not limited to:

      * Freedom of speech
      * Women's rights
      * Homophobia
      * Religious law
      * Forced marriage
      * Repressed view of nudity and sexuality
      * Female sex mutilation
      * Honor killings

      I know some of these are not tied directly to islam, but they occur mainly in islamic communities and islamic leaders are not doing enough to stop, or are even encouraging these practises. In general, I have the impression that many muslims are far more intolerant towards our way of life and hold values which I quite frankly find unacceptable. I'm not pretending Europe has had too many of these notions too long, 100 years ago women couldn't vote, 50 years ago people were being put on trial for erotic novels and 35 years ago being gay was a crime here in Norway. But in my opinion we have made great strides in recent years ensuring equality for all and that everyone is free to pursue their own happiness. The muslims are on the whole a very reactionary group that in my opinion is threatening to undo much of the progress we have made. What bugs me the most is the complete lack of symmetry - if we go to Saudi Arabia, they want us to respect their culture (or face Sharia). If they come here, respect for our culuture is slim to none.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by scribblej (195445)
        have far greater support among muslims, including but not limited to:

        * Freedom of speech
        * Women's rights
        * Homophobia
        * Religious law
        * Forced marriage
        * Repressed view of nudity and sexuality
        * Female sex mutilation
        * Honor killings


        Sounds to me like they're doing pretty well, if they support Freedom of Speech and Women's Rights they're off to a good start. Those other things on the list we(here in the US of A) are not much better off at. We're CERTAINLY not in a position to dictate these things to anyone else.

        H
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vertinox (846076)

        * Freedom of speech
        * Women's rights
        * Homophobia
        * Religious law
        * Forced marriage
        * Repressed view of nudity and sexuality
        * Female sex mutilation
        * Honor killings

        To be fair, that sounds like Western Christianity up until the 1700's when nationalism finally replaced religion as the reason for violent deaths and the renaissance actually was accepted in Norther Europe. Of course Islam is a bit different as its rules as interpretation, but as Turkey shows you can be Muslim without being like Saudi Arabia.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by the_womble (580291)

        if we go to Saudi Arabia, they want us to respect their culture (or face Sharia). If they come here, respect for our culuture is slim to none.

        If anything the lack of symmetry is the other way around.

        As far as I know the Saudis have not managed to impose Sharia law in Britain.

        On the other hand many British people have got off more lightly on breaking Saudi laws than a Saudi would have done because of diplomatic pressure (of course if you are from a less powerful country like the Sri Lankan teenager the

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Catbeller (118204)
      Please do remember that the United States and the "coalition" killed over a hundred thousand civilians in Iraq under the "shock and awe" doctrine of blowing everything and everyone up who were in our way.

      Iraq had thirty million people. One tenth the US population. So to keep the perspective correct here, it would be as though Iraq had invaded the US and killed a million people. A. Million. People.

      We've no moral cover. No place of dignity. We committed an act of terrorism that killed over a hundred thousand
  • by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:13PM (#20157893)
    It's mainly the tight integration of the browser with the OS that is/was an issue. Don't use IE and don't run executables from unknown sources and 95% of the security issues go away. SP2 is actually a pretty decent OS.

    -b.

    • Uh... on a real operating system that's called a "process". The only reason they need to think in these terms at all is because there is so much broken design in the basic OS. If everything wasn't welded inextricably from everything else, apps wouldn't take down other apps, nor the system when they misbehave, and you wouldn't need to "virtualize just the app! OMG! What a concept!"

      Here's a little concept I've been working on. Why don't we use a real OS?
  • WINE, Anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:13PM (#20157895) Journal

    Microsoft also showed a very interesting new desktop virtualisation technology called SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised."
    I remember when it was called WINE [winehq.org]!
  • by the computer guy nex (916959) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:15PM (#20157927)
    Microsoft didn't issue a press release, one guy voiced his opinion.
  • by chatgris (735079) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:18PM (#20157973) Homepage
    They say this now, when there is Vista to buy. It's just part of Microsofts standard strategy... Release new operating system, try and make the old one look bad.
  • Ironic (Score:4, Funny)

    by ArcadeX (866171) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:19PM (#20157987)
    I'd rather deal with airport security than install programs on my girlfriend's vista laptop...
  • SoftGrid isn't new (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:21PM (#20158023)
    SoftGrid isn't new, nor is it a particularly close relative of WINE as some Linux enthusiasts suggest. It was a Microsoft acquisition, the former product name being Softricity. It's not just virtualization, it's packaging, so a single file, streamed from a server as needed, encompasses the program and all of its settings, creating a layer over the regular file system, registry, etc. with copy on write functionality; if the program tries to change the host OS in any way, it just adds to the shell of program specific settings within the single packaging file. Extremely handy for network admins who need to distribute programs, and want the performance of local apps (once the whole package is streamed, it runs locally, with the streaming order prioritized based on what the user is doing), but want the simplified administration of centralized programs with standardized configuration.
    • I've been playing with it for a while now.. One of the nice features is the ability to repackage with an updated DLL or other update, and the next time the program runs, it updates. I use WSUS for windows patches and stuff, but this is handy for 3rd party apps and home grown stuff to ensure everyone has the newest version quickly..
  • Thanks for the security advice, Microsoft. You are the experts. We need your wisdom. Who better to advise us on security.

    I guess we can only hope to be a safe from attack as Windows is.
  • Then OS virtualization is something that you really should not need. It would just be a way of installing something that would be hidden from the OS, meaning that Windows does not have full control of the machine. Can't possibly want that.

  • by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:27PM (#20158123) Journal
    The security craze has also been a vehicle for agendas that actually are about security, except it's overreaching, excessive, broken, and dysfunctional security for intellectual property owners against MS's customers. Defective by design "security" both for MS themselves (Windows Genuine Advantage), and for the entertainment industry. Any mention of Vista's shortcomings alongside the bit about XP being a security letdown?
  • by MrJynxx (902913) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:33PM (#20158203)
    MS bought out softricity I think last year. In theory the system is great from an enterprise management perspective because it basically streams one instance of an application to many desktops.

    We actually use softgrid for citrix(softgrid steams to citrix, citrix streams to remote user). We've had some issues with it but very few compared to our regular problems across our citrix environment.

    Now the interesting part of softgrid is it's ability to sequence and stream a small set of the app. For instance after evaluating visio, we discovered most of the users only used 20% of the app, so softgrid only deployed that small footprint. Neat technology, and we will be using it next year when we move to XP for my environment of 7000+ desktops. (We're slow moving to new OS's :) )
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:37PM (#20158277)

    Riley also fessed up that Microsoft cocked up XP from a security perspective. "We let you down with XP," he said.


    What's the big security problem with XP? It installed by default with a firewall that denied inbound connections. It allowed people to easily give the kids and the wife non-admin access to a shared system. It automatically tells me when new security patches are available from Microsoft, and it always installs them without incident. It even complains (through a tray icon) when my virus-checker's images were getting out of date. I've been running the same XP system on my laptop now for about three years; I haven't had any spyware, viruses or worms yet, and the system still boots as fast as the day I got it. So...what's the beef with security?

    • by twitter (104583) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:56PM (#20158589) Homepage Journal

      Vista is not selling [slashdot.org], so XP must be killed. They do this with every OS, so you might as well imagine that it's 2011 and Win9 is out and they let you down with Vista.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Blakey Rat (99501)
      You're talking about Windows XP SP2, which was a huge leap forward for security. Before the service packs, XP was pretty bad, security-wise. It had a firewall, but it was disabled by default (IIRC). It didn't have any sort of monitoring of whether you were running a firewall/antivirus/antispyware program, that was added later.

      So I guess the point is that Windows XP failed at security, and Service Pack 2 was Microsoft repairing some of the problems with the stock OS.
  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:48PM (#20158463)
    But now we have something *new* that fixes all those problems! Really! So hand us more money, now!

    Chris Mattern
  • by Big Nothing (229456) <big.nothing@bigger.com> on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @12:54PM (#20158557)
    There already exist Windows software for virtualising applications; these are called sandboxing applications. Sandboxie [sandboxie.com] is a great example. Sandboxie is gratis, but you are encouraged to register/pay. Only drawback with Sandboxie is that it isn't Open Source - although I seriously doubt that "SoftGrid" will be Open Source either...

  • by tji (74570) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @01:22PM (#20159023)
    After reading the blurb on this, it sounds an awful lot like "Solaris Zones" -- which is similar to BSD Jails or OpenVZ on Linux.

    It's a kernel level partitioning of resources, to create virtualized hosts with low overhead. They all use the same kernel (so you couldn't have Linux/Windows/Mac virtual machines), but each system/app is unaware of the others.

    That way, you can have two virtual instances, each running Apache, but with different/conflicting middleware below it -- and no worries about them crapping on one another.

    The example they give in the article is being able to run Office 2003 and Office 2007 on the same machine. The concept behind it is cool. But, doesn't that example illustrate a lot of what is wrong with Windows -- they need an all new virtualization technology just to install two versions of Office on your PC?!?
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @01:44PM (#20159363) Homepage

    The endless security measures imposed on society as a result of the "war on terror" have become overblown and intrusive, according to Microsoft Redmond senior security analyst Steve Riley.

    I agree with Microsoft on something. Great, just perfect. Now I have to get ready for the 4 horsemen, a rain of fire and the end of time.

    On the plus side that means I won't have to mow this week.

  • by wwwillem (253720) on Wednesday August 08, 2007 @10:15PM (#20165053) Homepage
    OK, if XP is so bad, does he wants us to go back to Windows 2000. Probably not, so this is just another marketing push to get us from XP to Vista. Yep, it all sounds very embracing, and "we are sorry", but funny coincidence that this talk happens at the same time a new version (which brings in new money) is just released. Duh, isn't this normally called product promotion and shouldn't it happen with Leno or Letterman :-) instead of down-under?

Remember the good old days, when CPU was singular?

Working...