Once upon a time, operating systems managed the resources of computers, and that was about it. But after the PC revolution, most software makers started subscribing to the theory that bigger means better. But does it?
Historically speaking, software vendors generally designed operating systems to manage the resources of computer systems rather than providing helpful end-user tools -- at least in the beginning. Operating systems of the past didn't come bundled with a lot of end-user functionality.
In the past, computers typically had very specialised uses -- software makers didn't design computers for use by the general population. That, of course, was prior to the advent of personal computing, a revolution that sought to make computers accessible by the masses for whatever they wanted to do.
Once people had access to computing on their own terms, the idea of generalised computing took hold. Operating systems of the past with command-line interfaces began to give way to point-and-click graphical user interfaces. In addition, vendors kept piling more and more features into their operating systems. But exactly what functions should an operating system provide?
If you remember working with older operating systems, such as CP/M, MS-DOS, and PC-DOS, you know how different applications once were. With the notable exception of MacOS, software vendors simply layered early personal computer graphical interfaces onto the underlying operating system.
In fact, Microsoft just layered early Windows versions on top of MS-DOS, and even OS/2 was more of a "command-line" operating system with a layered GUI. And let's not forget X-Windows, which remains layered on top of the operating system rather than being a part of it. Microsoft decided to change tactics beginning with Windows NT, and it began featuring an "out-of-the-box" GUI.
But it's important to remember that Windows is more than just an operating system -- it's a complete environment bundled with a variety of general-purpose software and features. And it's these other "features" -- not the core functions of the Windows operating system -- that generally make Windows insecure.
While it's generally true that separating the OS functions from the GUI and applications doesn't inherently affect Internet security, it actually does in the case of Windows. Out of the box, most Windows systems are vulnerable to a variety of Internet security risks -- due primarily to the applications and functionality bundled and buried within Windows rather than the core OS itself.
For example, how many home computer users really need to have NetBIOS enabled by default and accessible over TCP/IP? (Not that many.) However, Microsoft decided to enable NetBIOS by default, leaving millions of computers at risk to well-reported worms and Trojans. And that's just one of many specific examples of enabling unnecessary features, which most users never even know are there.
4%
4%
It seems logical yet absurd.. such like netBIOS.. general users don't know what it netBIOS is and how to configure it to best suit them. And those general applications.. how many of general users can recognize what they need and choose them..?? maybe simplification and concentration of MS organization is what's necessary at this time..