 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Small firms worry they rely too much on Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 09:02 EST/14:02 GMT | News Source: ZDNet UK | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Many companies are concerned about their level of dependence on Microsoft's software, according to a survey. Many small and midsized companies harbour a level of trepidation regarding their dependence on Microsoft software, according to a survey. A report that Boston-based The Yankee Group released on Wednesday shows that some 43 percent of small and midsized businesses are "concerned" about becoming "overly reliant" on Microsoft's products and services. The study focused on information technology needs at 600 companies with fewer than 500 employees. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 11 of 11 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 442 (65.83.156.90) at Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:57:09 AM |
| Microsoft's future is NOT known. People thought the same of IBM back in the 80's. People have said Apple would be out of business for years now. Apple started the personal computer revolution and will continue to lead the pack for another 20 years. You do know that the Mac has been around that long, right? |
| #2 By 3 (81.96.64.229) at Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:20:58 AM |
|
No companies future is known for sure, things happen that no one here can forsee. If i was to view things now I could say Microsoft, Apple and Sun would most likely be around for the next 10 years or so, but anything after that no one would know, but that could be rubbish too as it's impossible to tell.
Out of all of them Apple and Microsoft are the most likely to carry things through over the next 10/20 years but yeah it is harder to tell what will happen with the others, Apple have after all been going longer than most and waded through consistant rumours of them going under (which clearly isn't likely to happen with the way things are going), so never believe anything people say when it comes to company survival. |
| #3 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:34:59 AM |
|
Considering the amout of cash Microsoft has in the bank, I think it's a pretty safe bet the Microsoft will be around a lot longer than many of these companies that are worried about their reliance on them.
Are these same companies worried about their reliance on Intel for their CPUs? On Xerox for their copiers? On GE for their light bulbs? On Cisco for their switches? Probably not. This fear of "over reliance" is simply a weak front for the ever popular ABM sentiment. |
| #4 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at Thursday, January 29, 2004 01:50:03 PM |
|
#3,
Um, shall I post the Windows Security Flaw list from 2002? I didn't think so :) TL |
| #5 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Thursday, January 29, 2004 04:16:21 PM |
| Comparing latest release to latest release would be pretty fair. Windows Server 2003 has been out for about 8 months now. Who wants to challenge it? |
| #7 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:17:38 PM |
|
#17 BobSmith wanted a fair comparison. Given that both 1.6.1 and W2K3 Server came out in April 2003 then that makes it a fair comparison. No Service Packs have been released for W2K3 Server as yet, and we were comparing NetBSD to W2K3 Server not W2K.
Anyways, the whole point isn't that one has more or less patches as it doesn't mean anything! But if you do want to get into the nitty gritty then NetBSD has had 1/2 as many patches. As #18 mentioned, it doesn't matter what OS you run, you'll still need to patch it. From that point of view the most important things for the sysadmin may be the availability of patches, the speed at which they are released once an issue has been encountered and whether or not installing the patch will cause any downtime. Saying "my OS only has X patches" is as useless without knowing the extent and details of those patches. For instance, I would rather 50 normal patches than a single remote exploit for which the server needs to be re-started/bounced to patch! |
| #8 By 12071 (203.217.67.196) at Friday, January 30, 2004 03:02:21 AM |
|
#19 "If I was a netBSD user, I would NOT be proud of the fact the "bug fix" version of 1.6 has so many bugs."
Think of it as a Service Pack, like the one that will be released for W2K3 Server to fix at least those 17 bugs. "To be fair," you are comparing one OS which was released 7 months before the other, but you keep on thinking that it's a fair comparison! NetBSD 1.6 was released on September 14, 2002, so it would be a little more fair to compare it to W2K Server SP3 - Service Pack 3 was released in August 2002. Just FYI, there are 46 Critical, 12 Important, 5 Moderate and 2 Low severity patches for W2K Server SP3, a grand total of 65 vs NetBSD's 28. |
| #9 By 19992 (68.69.127.19) at Friday, January 30, 2004 07:55:33 PM |
|
If the rest of the patches are for IE and WMP, then they are critical security updates for Win2K3. Microsoft has spent the past several years claiming that IE was part of the OS, and is now doing the same for Media Player. To be fair, they should count.
I do agree however, that Win2K3 is the most secure OS that MS has ever put out. Very nicely designed. I really like the fact that using the NSA security templates doesn't kill the machine now :) |
| #10 By 12071 (203.217.66.106) at Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:46:07 AM |
|
#22 ""To be fair" I am comparing the last two major releases of products. "
That's the oddest definition of fair that I have ever heard! Would it still be fair if let's say NetBSD 1.7 came out today? i.e. Would it be fair to compare the last two major releases (NetBSD 1.7 vs W2K3 Server)? "The rest are IE patches and Media Player patches " IE and WMP are part of the OS! Which is why those Critical exploits effect W2K3 Server! |
| #11 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:51:29 PM |
| For the record, I agree with kabuki and disagree with parker on this. |
