Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (45161)	5/23/2000 9:11:00 PM
From: SC	Respond to of 74651

Cheryl, I have to agree with you on this one. I tend to be sort of old fashioned when it comes to finances, I prefer paper records and phone calls to a trusted broker. On the other hand, I do have billing records on a computer which is not used on-line and is backed up on tape daily. One could make the argument that your paper records could burn up in a fire, but paper trails tend to be double or triple entry and can be reconstructed without too much difficulty. Anyone relying on electronic storage of financial data without a good backup procedure in place is a fool. I don't trust any computer connected to the internet with sensitive records. An orthopedic surgeon I know was telling me that his office was in chaos because the computer system had been down over a week. I asked him what system he was using and he said it was some sort of IBM unix system. Obviously, there was a systems administration problem here. If you have a good backup procedure in place, it's simply a matter of fixing whatever is wrong and restoring one of what should be multiple backup sets from different points in time. Shouldn't take more than 1 day. The average home user isn't going to bother with even one backup set. If he has pictures, projects, finances, etc. that he values on some sort of computer, he should at least backup the valuable data to some sort of removable media, better yet, multiple sets. It's sad but most people simply don't want to "waste" time or money doing this until they have suffered some catastrophic loss of valuable data. It's simply human nature--ignorance is bliss. The connection to microsoft is this: People want an intuitive system that isn't hard to learn, isn't expensive, and has numerous off the shelf applications available at the local wal-mart, office depot, staples, etc. Stability concerns come in second. Security concerns and privacy concerns are rarely thought about and even more rarely acted upon if it requires any additional cost or effort. Microsoft is providing people with what they want at an affordable cost, and they can share their stuff with friends, family and co-workers without worrying about file and system compatibilty Steve

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (45161)	5/24/2000 1:25:00 AM
From: mozek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Cheryl, I don't believe your numbers. Please reveal your sources, definition of a virus, and versions of operating systems affected. I have been actively using the Internet for years, and I have regularly used Windows 95 and 98 since before they were released. I have NEVER, not once, been infected by a virus. I have had trojan horses sent to me in executables, and my Windows antivirus utilities, of which there are plenty, have caught them. My Win9x system is also scanned regularly by hackers on the Internet looking for weaknesses in the protocol stack or trojan horses. How do I know that? Because I'm running Black Ice Defender, one of the many personal firewalls available for Windows. These effective 3rd party utilities are available for Windows due to its popularity, which brings me back to my previous point. I do believe that virus writers target Windows more often than other systems, not because it is less secure that MacOS or other client operating systems, but because it's popular. Would you go so far as to claim that Windows is inherently less secure than current MacOS versions? Do you include Apple in your indictment? If I were so inclined (which I'm not), I'm sure I could double, triple, or quadruple the number of viruses you're claiming are on MacOS in a day. I believe that even before Windows existed, I heard of more real Unix viruses (or worms) than you have listed as the total found. Do you believe that Java itself is completely secure? Which version? Unless you can back up your claims with facts or show some modicum of objectivity, your posts do not have any credibility. Mike