"Several of the updates will require a reboot",

so we'll lose skype again for a couple of days :) how will my multi billion pound business survive?

from scratch to be Microsoft's most secure OS...." roflmao

Stuffing code in for Direct X / Direct Show et al means I shall wait at least a couple of weeks for the fallout methinks.

Vista may have been designed to be secure, but the security it was designed to provide seems to have largely been centred on "content protection", DRM, etc. Protecting end users from preventable flaws in MS code doesn't seem to be a core business goal in Microsoft; it doesn't need to be when you have a monopoly.

Linux, blah blah, Firefox, Blah, blah, Blah, Mac, Blah, Blah, blah, Evil, blah, blah, don't buy, blah, blah blah....

QUOTE :

"Microsoft plans to issue seven security patches next Tuesday, three of which are rated "critical" because they could allow an attacker to remotely execute malicious code on an end user's machine."

Is that the one reported last month about Microsoft secretly installs components that allows Microsoft to force updates onto your computer without your knowledge even though you turned off the option manually ??

... and its most lightweight and stable, was QDOS. In fact, it's actually useful for something too (I'm thinking very low spec embedded systems).

Microsoft plans to issue seven security patches next Tuesday, three of which are rated "critical" because they could allow an attacker to remotely execute malicious code on an end user's machine.

Shouldn't that read 'stop' an attacker and not 'allow' an attacker?

Nope. Sorry. You were right first time. After All we are talking Microsoft.

Coat. Door. Pub. Taxi.

Everyone complains when Microsoft releases security fixes for their non-security products. El Reg publishes this stuff once a month, and every month the fanboi base nitpicks it. It's the same-old same-old and nothing really newsworthy comes from it.

Microsoft's most secure OS - is that like being a world champion one legged sprinter?

We just bundled of the them and make six Bundles!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

MMM... Soon, I will have 80 PCs running GNU/Linux. When I have eliminated all of that other OS on my LAN the party will be at my place. You are all invited. Seriously, the few machines running that other OS cost me more hours every week than the 30 I now have running GNU/Linux because GNU/Linux is modular and configurable. I can fix something and it stays fixed, with few unintended consequences and no re-re-re-boots. The last XP machine I fixed took 2 re-installs (was owned before the first updates...) of 30 minutes and then updating for hours with many re-re-re-boots. The crashing that prompted the re-installation is still there... Another ME machine had no driver for a printer and M$'s license giving permission to install that driver had expired, so I installed Debian GNU/Linux and it worked smoothly. That liberation took 20 minutes, a bit of configuration and a reboot to make sure it survived a reboot. Why do people put up with that other OS in a production setting? Must be for the jobs it creates...

... yeh, like cadbury's least fattening chocolate.

... or Paris' cleanest underwear.

How shallow is the ocean, how low is the sky?