I know, right! It's my first Brother printer. I like that it prints well consistently, but I won't be buying another one that's for sure. Thanks.
That's wrong. For example, you don't need a virus scanner for iOS. Why? Because the operating system was developed with security in mind. Windows was developed before the internet took off and Microsoft could make the OS more secure, but they choose not to in order to support legacy applications and backwards-compatibility as well as not force the customer to learn a new way of doing things. So the OS is left pretty much wide open and ready for exploit.
In the spirit of full disclosure I want to inform you of the outcome of my contacting Brother. As I said I would, I emailed Brother Printer's customer support telling them about the software conflict issue. They fixed their printer driver software & sent the update to me today. I'm impressed with the quick turnaround - a big thumbs up to the Brother customer support!!
Well they can't win, can they? If they don't make their OS backward compatible, people are going to accuse them of being greedy and forcing people to upgrade. If they do try to make their OS backward compatible, then you accuse them of making their software vulnerable to attacks and not forcing people to learn a new way of doing things??!! Seriously??!! Like people (myself included) embraced the idea of using Windows 8 all of sudden dealing with those ugly square apps instead of the familiar icons? LOL I am not saying Microsoft is perfect but whoever creates a virus with the malicious intent of harming a computer system and causing damages is always in the wrong here regardless whether the targetted computer system is iron-clad secure or "wide open". Same idea that just because a house seems to be unlocked doesn't mean it's ok for you to go in to steal things, a "wide open" OS isn't an invitation for virus attacks. And honestly, no system is ever 100% secure virus-proof. If somebody wants to attack it, that system will get attacked. The only reason WHY your IOS or other systems seem to receive fewer attacks is NOT because they are actually more "secure", no, it's because they are just not targeted as much.
Most people would not be affected. Most people go out and buy a whole new computer and install new software on it. How many people today still install software from a CD or DVD? Probably not very many. Microsoft forces upgrades anyway. If you want to run the latest version of Office, it's not compatible with Windows 95 anymore. Probably not even Windows XP, maybe not even Vista. The consumer wouldn't really be affected. Businesses could be affected. That factory automation software programmed in C where the consultant left the company and someone accidentally deleted the source code 15 years ago. That's the stuff that could be impacted. But in that case, just run the software on the old OS or finally upgrade it. The problem is when some people re-write the code, they might choose to implement the new version on Linux. Still, I don't think that's a very good excuse for not breaking backwards compatibility where necessary so there's probably another reason that I'm overlooking. Allegedly hackers resorted to hacking because Microsoft was not patching vulnerabilities that they found. So they exploited them and forced MSFT to address the issue. I'm not sure if that's true. But I'd rather have some punk kid exploit security vulnerabilities than the Chinese government. Idea is to exploit vulnerabilities fast so that they get patched quicker. Not sure that I agree with that, but that's an argument. If that's the case, why doesn't Apple and Android recommend that people install virus scanners. My mobile banking / credit cards are stored in my Google Wallet on my phone. My IBKR and TD Ameritrade accounts can be accessed from my phone. Same with GMail. I'd say just as much data can be found on my phone as my computer. That's likely true for a lot of people. The only way I can really screw up my phone is if I install a bad application (likely found outside the app store) that plants a trojan app on my phone. And even then I would have to give the app permission to install itself. Even if my phone is on the same network as other phones, I wouldn't have to worry about my phone infecting those other phones. Not true regarding Windows.
Yes blame on the big bad Chinese hackers. LOL It's all their fault. Yes as long as Microsoft has patched up "vulnerabilities" against those punk kids, they are really going to be invincible now against the big bad Chinese hackers. LOL So I guess the big bad Chinese hackers only attack Microsoft and they never attack all the other OS of course because all the other OS have no vulnerabilities. Now you are picking on Microsoft for recommending you to install virus scanners to protect yourself? LOL You want to attack Microsoft, fine, at least come up with s*** that Microsoft is REALLY guilty of. The naivety of these posts is just laughably appalling. I am not going to waste my time further on responding.
Before you make a stupid statement like that, why don't you do a 3 second Wikipedia search? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_in_China http://www.newsweek.com/g00/chinese...Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8=&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14 I never said only MS operating systems should be exploited nor am I even advocating the viewpoint that vulnerabilities should be exploited to force them to be fixed. You completely missed the point. Microsoft having to recommend that their customers install a virus scanner to band-aid their vulnerable product is like Honda asking customers to always wear fire-protective racing suits in case the car spontaneously catches fire. Why doesn't Apple recommend installing a virus scanner?
Apple doesn't recommend installing a virus scanner, that's Apple's choice. I certainly wouldn't fault Microsoft for being cautious and prudent by recommending users to install virus scanners. Like I said, no system is and ever will be immune from having viruses. Just like just because a car advertises itself to be 100% safe and you would never have car accidents while riding in it and you have 100% chance of surviving a car crash when driving or being a passenger in that car, it doesn't mean it can be exempt from installing seatbelts and airbags in the car. Since you don't possess the basic intelligence to understand what I wrote, then I am not going to respond. I have already wasted my time yet again responding, not anymore. Putting you on Ignore.