The final word : Windows is NOT a virus!

Megamieuwsel · 11-09-2003, 02:27 PM

Is Windows a virus?

No, Windows is not a virus. Here's what viruses (viri?) do:

1. They replicate quickly -- okay, Windows does that.

2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as
they do so -- okay, Windows does that.

3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk -- okay, Windows
does that, too.

4. Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with valuable
programs and systems. Sigh... Windows does that, too.

5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow
(see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. Yup, that's with Windows, too.

Until now it seems Windows is a virus but there are fundamental
differences: Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running on
most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they
tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.

So, Windows is not a virus.
*************************************************************
Found that in my in-box.
Felt like sharing it.

randomblast · 11-09-2003, 02:39 PM

scorpatron · 11-09-2003, 03:20 PM

heheh

titanium_geek · 11-09-2003, 04:13 PM

excellent. heheh.
better not fwd this one though, some people might freak out.. besides the fact that I am anti fwd...

titanium_geek

/bin/bash · 11-09-2003, 09:38 PM

Except:
Virus are free.
Microsoft charges for their code.

scorpatron · 11-09-2003, 09:50 PM

Also Virus's are designed with malicious intent,

Is making copious amounts of money a milicious intent?

linuxbotx · 11-09-2003, 09:56 PM

And another thing, virus's do exactly what they are advertised to do. I don't see windows doing anything its supposed to do

scorpatron · 11-09-2003, 10:01 PM

And another thing, virus's do exactly what they are advertised to do. I don't see windows doing anything its supposed to do

umm,

What the Love email virus really an email about love?

Do I really need to give 1000 examples of viruses not doing what they said they were going to do?

It's like the "sexgame.exe" virus which should really have been called "b#$@k_your_system.exe"

linuxbotx · 11-09-2003, 10:38 PM

You misunderstood me. A virus is advertised to lets say for example, destroy your system. It should do just that. I didn't mean in the name, or any misleading message a virus sends.

Example: Bob release a virus and calls it memfkr.12. What it does is it tells the user its a windows update. Once installed it dumps everything in memory causing the computer to crash. Hey, it did what it was supposed to do. Windows is supposed to allow you to run your PC securly,and easily. Windows is neither secure nor easy. Its easy to hack, create a virus for, and crash. Its not easy because if it doesn't work, you can't fix it.

today53 · 11-09-2003, 11:52 PM

what an insight!

J.W. · 11-10-2003, 12:26 AM

Best question: is Windows actually an OS, or merely an application that runs on DOS? -- J.W.

scorpatron · 11-10-2003, 12:47 AM

Is windows worth $300? thats a better question

Should windows be free?

Isn't bill already rich?

linuxbotx · 11-10-2003, 07:31 AM

Winblows is just a shell run on dos. Even XP requires dos to boot up. I wouldn't pay $300 for XP. XP should either be free or they should sell it for no more than $50. That way people won't feel so ripped off when they buy it, and since M$ charges for tech support anyway.

frieza · 11-10-2003, 08:22 AM

not a virus... LMAO, great reason for not being a virus, it isn't supported by it's author as much.

slakmagik · 11-10-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by linuxbotx
Winblows is just a shell run on dos. Even XP requires dos to boot up. I wouldn't pay $300 for XP. XP should either be free or they should sell it for no more than $50. That way people won't feel so ripped off when they buy it, and since M$ charges for tech support anyway.

Windows XP and Windows 2000 do not need DOS - they are NT 5.0 and 5.1, based on the NT line. They actually have to emulate DOS, in a sense. The kernel code and system structure is completely different. Windows 95 and 98 and ME *are* DOS (7x/so-called-8) and the GUI is just Windows 4x, right out of the Win3x line. Not much more different from 3x than 3x was from 1 and 2. There it's pretty certain than Windows '9x' is just DOS with a Windows shell bolted on and, unlike earlier versions, scrambled up. The DOS component was sabotaged and a lot of stuff shifted to the Windows side and the boot process modified and extensions and whatnot glued everywhere to make it a '32-bit OS'. So the GUI usurped the proper DOS responsibilities (similar things are happening with KDE and Gnome, IMO) and it's a *different* DOS, but it's still DOS.

Not that it matters. *g* DOS and 9x are dead and NT6 will supposedly be to NT5 as Win9x was to Win3x, so NT, as it now is, will soon be dead.

That's all by MS design. However, even NT6 may be dead soon. *Not* by MS design, but as an incidental effect of Linux. *g*

Very funny stuff, though - MS isn't good enough to be a virus. Ouch.