This is true, ok fair play to MS in that at first they didn't really know
how things would turn out. But they have had more than one chance to sort
Win98 was a major change and I happen to know that a great deal was done to
sort out the code. There would be Win98 for home, less safe than NT for
business, but better for home users. If the NT for business and Win98 for
home had happened, then maybe things would be better for them now. I know
NT got hit badly with the virus's, but it was still a much better platform
from which to fight them.
But since then MS has taken the slap-n-snot approach to changes (a bit like
the space shuttle, no one knows what every line of code does, so they dare
not touch it, changes are added as extras rather than risk changing a
function that might be unexpectedly called from rarely active code).
They had two opertunities. First after Win98 was extablished they had time
to reassess, they could have said 'Ok, home users need as much protection
as business users, so we will redesign for a safer environment. Also
business users have gone with Win98, because for a time NT was proving just
as vulnerable to virus attacks'. But they didn't do that, such a simple
lesson to learn but they didn't learn anything.
Then while XP was out they had another chance. In five years they could have
completely modulated the code, proper seperation of layers. Instead they
apparently 1/2 wrote something that failed.
MS had access to the worlds best developers, I can't believe that any of the
greater teams of developers I know of would fail to put together a good
safe OS in the 5 years that they had to do it in, unless they were