Here is the situation with which many computer users can identify. Our computer user goes to a superstore and purchases a brand name computer. Despite the fact that the computer sports an renowned American name there is not much in it that is made in the U.S.; most probably nothing. A version of Microsoft operating system is already loaded onto the hard disk and all that the user has to do is to flip the start switch and the computer is ready to take a trip into the Microsoft world. That computer is essentially a menu driven gadget and the user can go only where he/she is allowed to go by Microsoft OS. Outside the Microsoft preordained territory navigation is possible but difficult. Microsoft spent a great deal of effort in making the operating system as circuitous and opaque as possible in order to prevent illegal use. Whenever the user has to do some hardware or software installation or recovery he sees immediately that intentional obfuscation is Microsoft's most important "intelectual property" theft prevention schema. User who is continuously confused and thwarted is less likely to steel what Microsoft calls "intellectual property"; i.e. the software that was preinstalled on his computer. There is only one problem with this approach - sooner or later the user whose hardware is not 100% robust, or who deviates only a little from Microsoft software and allowed procedures (that are not 100% robust either) finds himself in a hardware/software labyrith out of which there is no non-destructive escape.

Also, the situation is ideal for planting of malicious viruses on the user's hard drive. If Microsoft would desist from its zero transparency policy and useless intentional complications (built strictly for the purpose of protecting the software from the user) the opportunities to infect the user's system with viruses would be sharply reduced. The software would no longer be opaque and could be compartmentalized and optimized with respect to security. Good security and OS opaqueness are incompatible endeavors. Data is being stuffed into a black box and the user does not know what is being done to it at any given instant. This is where simplicity, tranparency and uniqueness of the various codes could help in identifying and defeating the viruses. The present solution where Microsoft issues security fixes (one after another - ad infinitum) is untenable.

I suspect that the various "security fixes" may be dangerous to your computer health. As long as the software codes are "black boxes" the opportunity for malicious virus infections exist regardless of how many downloadable fixes Microsoft issues. As the Microsoft OS (I mean Windows) gets modernized it gets more inflexible, less general and it acquires the annoying tendency to screw non-Microsoft (and lately even Microsoft) software.

There are many schemes on how to protect so called "intellectual property" but the one Microsoft is using now is about the worse possible. When hardware malfunctions and has to be replaced the present Microsoft schema amounts to theft of user's money. I believe that Microsoft will eventually overplay its cards and the personal computing industry shed the Micosoft handcuffs in favor of freedom. Freedom from viruses and freedom from obfuscation. The latest versions of Linux are entirely acceptable.