|
The Windows ecosystem typically deployed in corporate PCs or workstations is often insecure, slow, and poorly implemented, resulting in ongoing issues visible to everyone. Examples include problems with malware, ransomware, and Windows botnets. In corporate environments, IT staff struggle to contain these issues using antivirus software, firewalls, and proxies. These security measures often slow down PCs significantly, even on recent multi-core systems that should be responsive. Microsoft is responsible for providing an operating system that is inherently insecure and vulnerable. They have prioritized user lock-in, dark patterns, and ease of use over security. Apple has done a much better job with macOS in terms of security and performance. The corporate world is now divided into two categories:
1. Software-savvy companies that run on Linux or BSD variants, occasionally providing macOS to their employees. These include companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix, and many others.
2. Companies that are not software-focused, as it's not their primary business. These organizations are left with Microsoft's offerings, paying for licenses and dealing with slow and insecure software. The main advantage of Microsoft's products is the Office suite: Excel, Word and Powerpoint but even Word is actually mediocre. EDIT: improve expression and fix errors: |
And for them it will be a bit of a stretch to say Microsoft should have stopped us deploying CrowdStrike. I’m sure Microsoft would love to do just that and sell its own Microsoft Solution.
Now if enterprises decide to run only Linux, BSD, or MacOS would they have been invulnerable to a bad CrowdStrike update: https://www.google.com/search?q=crowdstrike+kernel+panic
No so your entire premis is fully invalidated by a single google search.
On the other had I do feel Microsoft does have life far too easy in so many enterprises, but the fault here lies as much with the competition.