Why Apple is a better company than Microsoft

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I can get you lists of programs that had problems when MS released upgrades to their programs going back to Windows and MS Office versus Perfect Office (where there were problems) and things like undocumented program calls that were used by MS programmers that were not available to outside programmers.

The reason they're not documented is specifically so that people who don't work for Microsoft won't use them. Why don't they want people to use them? Well, consider what happens when I find an undocumented API hook and use it in my program, and then in a later update, the API designers take out the function (because it didn't work properly, or wasn't secure, or wasn't intended to be a permanent feature, or whatever). Suddenly, my program doesn't work on the most recent version of Windows, and people like you cry out, "Evil M$, they broke competitors' software on purpose, wah, wah, waaaaahhhhhh!!!" Undocumented API elements are undocumented because MS can't guarantee that they will be there in the future (a consequence of this is the extremely stable and compatible API that Asher's been talking about).

SP

[Asher]

How dare you make such a sensible post! For shame.

[Asher]

As a sidenote, IBM's XL C/C++/Fortran compilers do not work on OS X 10.4 due to changes Apple's made. And since they're switching away from IBM compilers, IBM is no longer releasing new versions of the compilers for MacOS X.

This means that companies doing high-performance computing, like say the Virginia Tech cluster, have to stick to an old version of MacOS X. They're not too happy about that, probably will transition to Linux soon.

[Mr. Harley]

Except there are undocumented API's that Microsoft Programmers use to get their version of programs for the new OS or new update out before their competition. That was documented in the lawsuits, and that is where the problem comes from. Fve Crathva is either ignorant, or an Asher DP.

And as I've mentioned in the past, Microsofts ability to abuse and push the US legal system to it's limit is a brilliant business strategy (see Asher, does that make you happy ). It just happens to be bad for the IT industry and the end users.

[Asher]

I never understood that part of the trial (that MS had APIs they didn't make public that they used to make their products better), and as I recall I didn't see any real evidence of that.

Could you provide an example of one of the APIs that gave MS such a big advantage that they didn't make public?

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Except there are undocumented API's that Microsoft Programmers use to get their version of programs for the new OS or new update out before their competition.

No, there aren't and they don't. That statement ranks high on the list of the least sensible things I've read on this forum.

SP

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Fve Crathva
The reason they're not documented is specifically so that people who don't work for Microsoft won't use them. Why don't they want people to use them? Well, consider what happens when I find an undocumented API hook and use it in my program, and then in a later update, the API designers take out the function (because it didn't work properly, or wasn't secure, or wasn't intended to be a permanent feature, or whatever).

The only problem with that explanation is why MS would leave any undocumented API calls in finished product. If they don't work properly, are insecure, or are not intended for general consumption, why leave them in? It's easy enough to run a final pass to mask them all out.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The only problem with that explanation is why MS would leave any undocumented API calls in finished product. If they don't work properly, are insecure, or are not intended for general consumption, why leave them in? It's easy enough to run a final pass to mask them all out.

Since we're making a big deal about this, either you or shawn should grace this thread with something else other than rhetoric -- give me an example of an API call MS used to their advantage that competitors couldn't...

[Agathon]

I don't think I have to address this point.... It's the same as security through obscurity, it's nice when it works, but once discovered you're screwed.

Yet again another doofus fell for this. There are platforms with lesser marketshares with more viruses. This argument doesn't square with the facts -- there must be more going on.

And I see that Creative has basically admitted defeat.

[Asher]

Yet again another doofus fell for this. There are platforms with lesser marketshares with more viruses.

Name some?

This argument doesn't square with the facts -- there must be more going on.

No, your argument doesn't square with the facts. OS X certainly has had its fair share of remotely-exploitable non-user-intervention required exploits, but there have been no worms or viruses to exploit them. The answer clearly isn't "by design", because the exploits were public and test cases could exploit them without issue.

The question we're left with is why there aren't authors writing MacOS X viruses...and the answer lies in the ~2% marketshare on emo-kid's computers.

It's the same reason Firefox was more secure before it was more popular. When it was hovering in the 2-3% marketshare range it had virtually no vulnerabilities, now that it's pushing 10-15% marketshare the vulnerabilities are flowing in...

[Q Classic]

Yet again another doofus fell for this. There are platforms with lesser marketshares with more viruses.

*cough*Firefox*cough*

Lesser marketshare with vulnerabilities, and yet Firefox isn't targeted as often as IE.

[Q Classic]

Also: security through obscurity is NOT something you want to base your security on.

[Datajack Franit]

I have downloaded iTunes and I have to admit it´s damn good

[Q Classic]

I'll have to disagree. I dislike iTunes.

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The only problem with that explanation is why MS would leave any undocumented API calls in finished product. If they don't work properly, are insecure, or are not intended for general consumption, why leave them in? It's easy enough to run a final pass to mask them all out.

Because they were being used? Because they worked when used by people who knew precisely how to use them, but were too dangerous when used publicly? Because they were a temporary kludge, necessary for some OS operation, but slated to be removed when a proper implementation was written (or when it was no longer necessary)? It's easy to to be an armchair engineer and say that Microsoft should release their products only when they're completely finished, but that's idiotic and naive. I'm sure as a Linux fanboy, you'll agree that Microsoft's programmers aren't perfect.

SP