Windows 7...

So... MS made a great product some years ago. An OS that pleased almost everyone, that was fairly simple to use, had great capabilities, could do business software, interconnect with printers, scanners, fax machines, connect to the internet, and supported vast hard drives, was quick and responsive to the user, and could be easily tweaked to your personal needs. It was the pinnacle of an age of OS technology... no, I'm not talking about Windows 7, or even XP. I'm talking about Windows 98. The ultimate hybrid of 32 bit processing and DOS mode kernel, bringing to near perfection computing on a PC. Sure there were still glitches here and there, nothing is perfect. But in many ways I contend that Windows 98 was superior to Vista, and the up coming Windows 7 from the "what does it do for me" and "ease of use" POV.

Windows XP was another high point in MS's OSes. It had the enhanced stability of the NT core combined with the vastly superior user interface supported by Windows 98, bringing to the masses a truly 32 bit OS with no legacy DOS compromises that was at once easy to use, hugely configurable and extensible by software developers, while offering robust support for the latest 32 bit technology of the chips of the day. This did away with the limitations of fixed USER, KERNEL and GUI heap sizes of Windows 98 once and for all. Gone was a need to regularly reboot the machine in order to get back missing resources that slowly leaked away into a no-mans land of purgatory, awaiting the next reboot to live again. NTFS was the new defacto file system, bringing with it massive improvements in file storage efficiency over the aging and stretched to nearly breaking FAT32 filesystem, giving us an underlying transaction oriented filesystem with much room to grow and adapt to future hardware capabilities. And much like Windows 95, XP was very well received... in time.

It is easy to forget now the many voices of distrust and dislike of XP at the time. But XP was initially criticized on many levels, for breaking compatibility with Win 9x games and software, and for foisting upon users the more error-prone and complex world of security attributes on the registry and filesystem, and user accounts that could easily prevent various software from functioning properly, or which could lock out your computer from being usable at all, were you so foolish as to forget the only account password for your machine. But in time, most folks saw that the relaxation of, and in some cases, complete disappearance of restrictions from the old DOS-kernel based 9x OSes by XP was a worthy trade-up, and the nay-sayers voices died down in a general atmosphere of contentment with XP. After all, it had taken Microsoft many years to bring the vision of a truly new OS, written from the ground up as a 32 bit fully preemptive micro-kernel-esque to the masses. An OS that was inherently stable, extensible, robust in every way, and secure enough internally as to rate a C2 level from the government. Modern computing was finally here! No more crashing the machine when a single buggy application experienced a failure. No longer would one application be able to grab access to another's memory, or to mess with any other component's state and cause harm to your PC. The dream appeared real, and for the most part, functional.

But having a single OS that both business and consumers use proved a fantastically huge target for the unscrupulous amongst us. Virus writers, malware writers, phishers, net bots, and so on found a fantastic wealth of users who didn't know how to protect themselves from the explosion of connectivity available during that time, and so Microsoft got something of a tarnished reputation for the guys that make the OS that is susceptible to every virus, malware, and bot-net ever conceived.

From there, MS, motivated to avoid losing its dominance in both the consumer market and the business market, has made more and more strident attempts to quash this reputation.

Sadly, this is what has inexorably lead to Vista and Windows 7. Not that this is all that Vista and Windows 7 are about. There is a great deal of focus and good design behind C#, and the .NET platform as a whole. There are some excellent improvements to the video device driver model, as well as to the sound subsystem. And intertwined with all of these other improvements has been the largely unheralded creation of x64 based versions of XP and Vista, with solid device driver support for the lion's share of devices for Vista x64 edition. All of those improvements are just that: improvements. They don't take anything away from the end-user, they don't make it harder to use one's computer, they only create an enhanced set of capabilities for a computer running Vista / Windows 7, especially x64.

However, all of these advancements are overshadowed by ineptitude of MS's security model. It seems to me that many parallels could be drawn between MS's wrong-headed approach to security and this nation's wrong-headed approach to foreign diplomacy under the Bush administration. Both sought to improve the security of its "citizens", and both created an atmosphere in which the evildoers and the enforcers thrive at the expense of their citizens. Our rights as owners of our own computers are less today than they were when XP was introduced, which itself restricted some of our former rights under 98.

The intent is understandable. We all want to have our computers virus, and malware, free. We want our data to be off-limits from those who aren't authorized to view it. We want our computers to remain functional under an attack - to prove stronger than the virus or malware its subjected to as we browse the wild west of the Internet. That's a laudable goal.

However, MS has built walls the likes of which can only be seen in Israel and in the formerly partitioned Germany. The very idea of such walls is contrary to freedom, to the free flow of ideas, and to empowering citizens to be able to accomplish what they want with their own computers. It takes away control from the hands of owners (users), and puts it in the hands of overseers (Microsoft). Which from some obviously Machiavellian perspective fits Microsoft's overall business goals perfectly: they gain control of everyone's PCs making people all the more dependent upon Microsoft and its affiliates for relief from problems that arise, and it helps move the entire notion of a computer away from an ownership by the end-user model towards a rental model where Microsoft remains firmly in control. Chances are good that these thoughts have occurred to Steve Ballmer or other luminaries at Microsoft. I'm equally sure that they're not the primary goal or driving force behind MS. There is no conspiracy, just motivating factors. And giving Microsoft more control, and users and businesses even more reason to need MS in order to function well, can only be seen as a good thing to those who wish to get as much as they can out of our wallets at MS (which is by definition the primary goal of any corporation's share-holders, and therefor the primary goal of the corporation's senior management).

When it comes right down to it, Vista and Windows 7's penchant for creating an even more complicated environment in which to operate as an end user is fundamentally a bad idea. It necessitates middle men to become the high priests of computers, specialized individuals who have the aptitude and training to maintain end-users and businesses computers in the face of the growing complexity of doing so. It encourages users to become ever more complacent, ever more putting themselves in the hands of an expert with no hope for taking control of their machines, of having any real understanding or ability to control them and make them work for them, and adapt to their needs, rather than the other way around.

We are more and more forced to become slaves to our computers, forced to figure out how to make them function for what we need to accomplish within the ever-more-restricted environments that they present to us, all in the name of "security."

But I ask you - what security? Real security, measurable with actual results? Or the illusion of security. The sense that it is hard for a virus to succeed because it is hard for us to succeed at using our own machines? But is there any concrete evidence that a machine, running Windows Vista or Windows 7, is any less susceptible to current viruses and malware and net bots than the same machine running Windows 98 or XP? I doubt it. I very much doubt it.

Now, I'm sure that given MS's marketing dept, a reasonable-sounding case can be made that seems like MS has made gains in theses areas. However, ask yourself: "do I feel more confident about my computer now than I did 5 years ago?" Or, "when a virus strikes, am I more or less confident that I can rid my machine of it and restore it to full operation without losing my files and configuration settings on my machine now as compared to 5 years ago?"

I suspect that, like me, you don't feel more confident now on either count. That, in truth, the complexity that makes our machines harder to understand, and harder to control works in favor of the virus writers (who can specialize in this technology) and against ourselves, who are by definition not going to specialize in every nuance of the ever-changing complexities of MS's security measures.

The fact of the matter, from the most obvious and simple stand-point, is that obscurity and complexity aids the bad guys, and transparency and simplicity aids the common person. If everyone knows the rules, then everyone can figure out how to fix it, or at least a much, much larger pool of folks can, which means that viruses are only that much more easily removed and rendered useless. They're also easier to detect, since the system as a whole is easier to understand and see what its supposed to do, and easier to see when its functioning incorrectly.

At the absolute minimum, I would be content if MS would take its ill-thought-out war on simplicity over to its business-only side of the fence. I think its still a disservice to its business customers for much the same reason that I think its a foolish policy in general, anywhere and anytime, but at least there is some real motivation from the business side... primarily in the form of "I don't care if MS bilks bajillions of dollars from a stupid sheep-like business community", but I do care if they debilitate ever man woman and child in their ill-considered quest for world-domination and perfect security.

Home users don't need, nor want, for the most part, a security model that gets in the way of actually accomplishing productive uses for their costly computers. I want my PC to auto-detect other computers on my LAN. I want to share files with my family easily. I want to be able to print to any printer on my LAN without the need for a masters in the bizarre underworld of MS "security." My wife wishes to install and play games as painlessly as possible. My daughter wants to get onto facebook or myspace and hang out with her friends. She doesn't understand, nor should she be required to understand or see or ever have to deal with a retarded "are you sure you want to install blah-blah-blah"?

If software wants to install onto a computer, a simple signature verification should be issued, and confirmed, and a user-friendly and comprehensible dialog asking if you trust X vendor should be shown. If you trust that vendor, then the software is installed and given enough rights to perform its duties. If you don't, it isn't, end of story. And if it doesn't have proper credentials, then it simply shouldn't be allowed at all except by a super-user / administrator. I, as owner of the machine, should have the right to shoot myself in the foot. Its my computer, and hence my prerogative.

But perhaps now we're wandering into a cultural stupidity that needs to be resolved in America before some of these idiocies of technology can be properly addressed. The idea of personal responsibility.

Currently, we seem to be leaning ever so precipitously over the edge of a cliff of "its someone else's responsibility at all times" attitude in this nation. An attitude that is so incredibly at odds with those of our parents and their parents and on back to the settlers and immigrants that founded this nation. If I override the warnings, and install something that ultimately is harmful to me... that IS MY OWN DAMN FAULT. It isn't MS's for failing to warn me adequately. It isn't my governments for failing to protect me adequately. It isn't my parents for failing to teach me adequately. IT IS MY OWN DAMN FAULT. I am responsible for my actions. Me and me alone. And if I do something retarded... well, I suffer the consequences. Not sue someone. "I did something stupid: so pay me lots of money because you should have made it impossible for me to be an idiot." -- who the fuck thought that this was a reasonable approach to life, and why do we as a nation seem to be wedded to this intellectually, morally, and spiritually vacuous and ultimately self-defeating idea?

Gross negligence should be the burden of the plaintiff. And if the negligence isn't gross, obvious, systematic, and otherwise blatantly out of control, then the fault is not the companies, not the governments, but the individuals. You chose to buy the cup of coffee. If you're too fucking dumb to know its really hot and hot things are owie when spilled, then you're too fucking stupid to live on this planet and fuck you already.

And I don't want to live in a world filled with limitations on what I can do with the things I buy because the manufacturer is terrified that I'll sue (and win) over their failure to stop me from being a fucking idiot. Idiots have removed themselves from the gene pool from time immemorial by virtue of their own stupidity. There is no reason to think that this is a bad thing. There is no reason that I can think of that society should endeavour or waste any resources on protecting such idiots from themselves (Though, there is a good reason to protect the larger society from such idiots).

So, in a nutshell, Windows 7 is Vista with a few minor visual baubles, and the myriad patches necessary to make Vista stable, and a continuation of the misguided policies at Microsoft which further alienate the American public and solidify their reputation for being an error-prone and user-unfriendly OS and company in general.

Apple gets no love from me, but that's a rant for another day.

And that's my take on Windows 7. God help us all.