News MS has biggest security launch for a year

No no no ... what I meant was if Linux did take the place of Windows nowadays... like Linux being the mainstream OS EVERYBODY runs.
'Cause then it would have to be more open to masses and then it would have security flaws IMO...

 

I disagree... Linux has the source codes released too, therefor, everyone knows where potential weaknesses are... So they will get fix easier too... And due to the nature of Linux (intended as a multi user platform, therefor inherent more secure vs XP) it's also safer... (like, no user using a Linux system is administrater...)

But, don't compare apples to harddrives... Linux and XP are 2 totally different things...

 

IMO Linux isn't ready for the masses yet. I think it will be, but it will take a while longer. The biggest problem with computers is the users. People who use IE and click on "Free pr0n for everyone". As I said before, I don't mind security fixes. I do, however mind when things could be fixed before release and they weren't and I also mind when they release pointless updates such as the validation thingy.

-ed out

 

But there are also things that only can be fixed when the OS hits the shelves and a massive amount of users test the software. I agree, that if you pay for an OS you expect it to work flawlessly, but the same goes for new hardware. If you buy bleeding edge technology, you know there is a possibility of bugs... Cutting new motherboards often have unstable BIOS's and stuff... That is something you know that happens...

 

Yar yar, security by obscurity.. gimme a break!

Security in linux is a million miles away from windows.

Try installing something on linux without the root password. Now go try and install something on windows and see if it asks for a password.. hmm.. funny that.

 

Hmm, that is logical, because in windows most users are administrator = root...

If you go use a proper configured windows workstation, you wouldn't be able to install anything... That's what I hate about campus computers...

 

Try installing something on Windows under a limited or Guest account...

 

Okay, i'm not an expert but this is my understanding of installation on windows vs linux:

There is a big difference! In windows disallowing installing is a high-level implementation (e.g. guest account or lockdowns) thing. In linux it's down to permissions (low level).

On Windows malicious stuff can [potentially] still install itself even when you can't install something yourself (even though most of the time you can, without any passwords etc).

On linux because you need the right permissions NOTHING can install itself without a password whether it was initiated by the user or a 3rd party.

Obviously it can potentially but because the requirements are down to a much lower level permission it's a lot harder to work around.

The security on windows is like those sites that you right-click on to do a view source and some javascript popup tells you not to look at it! It's reacting to events, it's not built in from the bottom up. THAT (permissions) is what is being overhauled in Vista to try and make it more secure.

 

hum..... you are not the last. there are at least 2, you and my good friend "Mosca", he loves win ME because "the tons of errors and blue screens make him feel alive" dont ask me, i realy dont know what he smokes.

 

See, i don't get that. Everyone says it, but I've had far fewer stability problems on my ME systems than I have on my XP Pro64 system. My ME fileserver in the living room has been running happily along since, well, the last power outage last winter sometime. Once again, maybe it's just me, but ME has never given me half the headached that XP has. I also really miss the winipcfg command for setting up my network. The fact that I can't renew a connection wile looking at the settings is frustrating as all get out!

 

Surely that's caused by the fact that XP Pro64 is (comparativly) cutting edge, try moving to 2k or (even normal XP). the last time i had a bsod on my 2k box i had to RMA my memory modules. Or move to a Linux 64, again much more mature code.

 

Halifax use NT4. is this still supported?

And of course ms have to keep updateing it, nothing will ever be perfect, personaly, I have no gripe with them at all, it does it all in the background or on a restart, whats wrong with that?

 

When spyware like programs (WGA notifications) automatically install themsleves, without warning or telling you they basically act like spyware/a virus
Also, MS sit on most of the security holes, once exposed, they fix them, i bet they know about alot more bugs then are ever fixed

 

Never used the Repair button then I take it.

 

I have used it, but you have to open another window to see the settings, close that window, hit the repair button, then re-open the window to see what happened. That's not what I call a user friendly system.

 

I have to agree with Cthippo here. I ran ME for about an year and had no problems whatsoever. I preferred it's more "down-to-earth" interface over the XP teletubbies GUI. TBH I would probably still be running ME if I wasn't forced to switch to XP after a HD failure. I like how ME is so understated and unobtrusive. And it tends to use less system resources than XP. However, from an objective POV I don't think ME was ever meant to be anything more than a transitional OS between 98 and XP. Just my $0.02's worth, though.

-ed out

 

ME was a disaster, it is clearly MS's worst OS EVER !, ME is basically 98 but with more drivers and horribly unstable
The number of crashes occuring with ME are crazy. MS gave up with it and stopped supporting it very early, If you like ME you should use Windows 2000 instead of XP then

 

Start => Run => cmd => ipconfig /release ; ipconfig /renew

That gives you the info as soon as it's updated...

And history has proven ME to be a bad move for MS, but with XP they got it right again... The ease of use for the common noob (like 95% of the computer users) is unmatched.

 

Try to remember back to the early beta's of XP... The whole premise was convergence! Every app would work seamlessly with every other app, and Any PC running XP could easily SHARE data with any other XP machine. Working on this premise XP was built WIDE OPEN!!!

That being said you CAN easily lock XP down. It is possible to make it a secure operating system, but to do that you have to make the OS less usable. Vista was engineering in a world where M$ is under daily attacks. These attacks come from thousands of M$ hating script kiddies who mainly run Linux b/c they think its COOL!

I think everyone will be supremely surprised with vista! With the new security features and services M$ are offering / developing. M$ is Finally starting to catch up with the times. I for one am VERY VERY Pleased with the beta's and can't wait for Vista to hit the shelves.

 

Have you ever worked upon a locked XP workstation... If you did you woudn't say this, because working on a locked down XP isn't working...Because nothing works... Less usable is a clear understatement...

And what's wrong with running Linux? I myself run Linux Gentoo, not because it's cool or something, because I like it...

And glnsize, the name is Microsoft, MS for short... I don't see a $ in the name, do you? This annoys me to the bone...