Author Topic: XP or Vista user — take the poll! (Read 86942 times)

zridling · « **Reply #50 on:** August 01, 2007, 01:13 AM »

Yet another article to throw on the heap, this one from ComputerWorld:
Businesses having second thoughts about Vista — Fewer now believe it's more secure than XP, says new survey.

Carol, if you're right, then you can only imagine the future where governments control their citizenry via access.... Oh wait, some Arab nations and the Chinese government already do this, with help from corporations like Google, et al. What grinds my gears is that MS Office and Windows is sold at premium prices in Europe and the US/Canada, but sold in China bundled together for $3. Why can't I have that price!

Grorgy · « **Reply #51 on:** August 01, 2007, 01:55 AM »

I would hazard a guess that apart from Microsoft's desire to lock in a market the price partially reflects the income of the average Chinese, around US$1500, a year not a month, so its either sell it cheap or not sell it at all. (of course PhD and Masters degree holders make about double that.)

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #52 on:** August 01, 2007, 04:31 AM »

Fewer now believe it's more secure than XP, says new survey.
-zridling (August 01, 2007, 01:13 AM)

What a surprise ... has no one in the real world realised that the only truly secure version of any operating system is one that doesn't connect to the outside world (even via removable discs). Of course you can't install anything but what the heck it makes a nice paperweight.

The main thrust of MS these days seems to be to make money and to placate the music and video industries (ie. make it harder to actually use products you have purchased). The rest of Windows development seems more aimed at eyecandy and anti piracy - non of which really helps or encourage the legitimate user.

Actually that isn't really true - a pretty secure operating system is possible if it boots from ROM rather than the disc and doesn't all items to automatically startup with the OS. If you do get attacked all you need to do is reboot and the problem is pretty much dealt with. Trouble is most end users can't easily upgrade ROM sets. Acorn Computers took this route with the RiscOS system but they went the way of most non-MS vendors - had their ideas nicked and went out of business (except for their ARM subsidiary which has done remarkably well in the consumer device chip business).

f0dder · « **Reply #53 on:** August 01, 2007, 04:35 AM »

Trouble is most end users can't easily upgrade ROM sets.
-Carol Haynes

Flash ROM, baby

And no, wouldn't be too hard securing it against malicious "updates".

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #54 on:** August 01, 2007, 04:39 AM »

[previous post edited]

Flash ROM, baby

True - but it isn't really as secure as true ROM based systems. Actually it could be a very simple user upgrade - all you need is the new OS supplied on a set of ROMs mounted on an insertable card - a bit like a PCMIA socket on laptops. Then to upgrade all you do is pop out the old card and pop in a new one and reboot. No hours of reinstalling everything, no need for activation, piracy becomes a lot more difficult because you would need large fabrication plants .... what are the disadvantages?

f0dder · « **Reply #55 on:** August 01, 2007, 05:03 AM »

True - but it isn't really as secure as true ROM based systems.
-Carol Haynes

You can use public-key cryptographic verification for the ROM images - should be doable in hardware, and would make it next to impossible to flash tampered images.

what are the disadvantages?
-Carol Haynes

More expensive to come out with "software updates", ROM is probably still more expensive than optical media, etc...

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #56 on:** August 01, 2007, 05:33 AM »

Yes but if we are talking about Windows list price is $500 - so ROM costs are pretty insignificant.

Regarding updates - ROM based would mean that there would be more incentive to get it right in the first place! Also there would be less need for security updates (which are the majority).

The other big advantage is an almost instantaneous boot process!

f0dder · « **Reply #57 on:** August 01, 2007, 05:49 AM »

Yes but if we are talking about Windows list price is $500 - so ROM costs are pretty insignificant.
-Carol Haynes

Will probably be factored into the end cost with an outrageous multiplier, though...

Regarding updates - ROM based would mean that there would be more incentive to get it right in the first place! Also there would be less need for security updates (which are the majority).
-Carol Haynes

I wonder if we'll ever see that, really - almost seems unthinkable to get it right in the first place with modern software, especially something as complex as an operating system

...and a (non-flash) ROM-based approach means that if something needs to be fixed, the fix release cycle will be much longer than it is today.

The other big advantage is an almost instantaneous boot process!
-Carol Haynes

Dunno about that, really - a very big time of booting systems are spent on BIOS initialization and device init... but other than that, sure, ROM ought to have faster read and lower seek-time than a harddrive

There's also the issue of ROM size, by the way... Vista-on-chip, anyone? :p

But it's an interesting idea, and afaik Microsoft has gone to some lengths to make the windows kernel ROMable (ie, running directly from ROM instead of having to be copied to RAM first). Having the very core part of the kernel and a few boot-time drivers in ROM doesn't seem like a particularly bad idea to me, except that it means even more os-vendor lockin than we have to day.

Lashiec · « **Reply #58 on:** August 01, 2007, 06:44 PM »

Let's go back to the 80s with Microsoft's BASIC

. Now that was a lock-in

zridling · « **Reply #59 on:** August 01, 2007, 10:39 PM »

You want lock-in? Go with Apple. From the OS to the monitor to system hardware to the keyboard and mouse, they're picking your pocket. Okay, you can choose alternative keyboards and mice, but they want you to buy everything from the Apple store, period.

justice · « **Reply #60 on:** August 02, 2007, 04:29 AM »

if they let you choose competing products then it's not a lockin, surely? You can buy competing products for dell computers but not from the dell store. Same thing?

moerl · « **Reply #61 on:** August 02, 2007, 11:23 AM »

Happy Vista user here

wreckedcarzz · « **Reply #62 on:** August 04, 2007, 11:02 AM »

I voted a couple days ago and forgot to comment -

I am happily running Vista on 3/4 of my computers, and I really don't see why (except for hardware issues) not to upgrade. You can upgrade from XP Home to Vista Home Basic for practically nothing, and if your a student (anywhere) you can get Home Premium (upgrade) for $90. And its not really bloated, either (a lot easier to use, too)

Unless of course an app you use hasn't converted yet...there really isn't any reason not to.

I am still unsure about the debate on 95 vs Vista - what one is better though.

Windows 95

Mandork · « **Reply #63 on:** August 05, 2007, 06:19 AM »

The main thrust of MS these days seems to be to make money and to placate the music and video industries (ie. make it harder to actually use products you have purchased). The rest of Windows development seems more aimed at eyecandy and anti piracy - non of which really helps or encourage the legitimate user.
-Carol Haynes (August 01, 2007, 04:31 AM)

Which is why I'm sticking with XP until I am in a position to move to Linux. It's not perfect either, I'm sure, but from a sort of "consumer politics" point of view I'd like to encourage the open source underdogs. I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal when I am a legitimate paying customer, and as far as I can tell Windows "eye candy" is often annoying and just makes everything run slowly on run-of-the-mill PCs.

f0dder · « **Reply #64 on:** August 05, 2007, 03:41 PM »

Unless of course an app you use hasn't converted yet...there really isn't any reason not to.
-wreckedcarzz

Give me a reason in favor of upgrading? I don't see any reason to. Vista or Linux or Mac OS X? dunno if one disease is better than the others.

moerl · « **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2007, 10:12 PM »

Unless of course an app you use hasn't converted yet...there really isn't any reason not to.
-wreckedcarzz
Give me a reason in favor of upgrading? I don't see any reason to. Vista or Linux or Mac OS X? dunno if one disease is better than the others.

-f0dder (August 05, 2007, 03:41 PM)

If I'd have to give you one reason, it's FAR better security. Vista is MS' most secure OS ever. I don't use AV or a software firewall on my Vista box so far. I know I'm asking for trouble, but I know what I'm doing, for one, and secondly I trust Vista to protect me sufficiently. I don't see where I could get a virus from. All my mail is done through GMail, so it never even gets to my PC. The only thing is that I don't have any real software firewall protection, but I'm also behind a router... dunno. I feel safe

moerl · « **Reply #66 on:** August 05, 2007, 10:15 PM »

Unlike many noobs out there, btw, I also leave UAC on. Everybody comlains about how annoying it is, but frankly, you get used to it. It's not like you have to deal with it often.. and it makes sense to have it. It's a smart security measure, and something both OS X and Linux have had in place for years, albeit in different ways. When you make changes that affect the system, both Linux and Mac OS will ask for your password. Vista takes that concept further and asks you to confirm certain sensitive actions on the system by giving your ok. Nothing wrong with that and it provides added security.

It's a feature everybody loves to complain about. What everybody fails to see is that security isn't all fun and rainbows. If you want solid security, you might have to pay for it a bit in the currency of convenience. I'm up for the deal and can't say I'm bothered.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #67 on:** August 06, 2007, 03:47 AM »

If I'd have to give you one reason, it's FAR better security. Vista is MS' most secure OS ever. I don't use AV or a software firewall on my Vista box so far. I know I'm asking for trouble, but I know what I'm doing, for one, and secondly I trust Vista to protect me sufficiently. I don't see where I could get a virus from. All my mail is done through GMail, so it never even gets to my PC. The only thing is that I don't have any real software firewall protection, but I'm also behind a router... dunno. I feel safe
-moerl (August 05, 2007, 10:12 PM)

Presumably you are using the Vista Firewall which is reasonable ?

No AV seems a bit dangerous to me - you may know what you are doing but mistakes happen! What if you download sofware that has been accidentally infected at the developers end (it has happened before even in big companies who have sent out infected CDROMs). If you do get infected how will you know?

As for Vista is the most secure version of Windows yet ... may be true but it sounds like MS hype to me ... after all that is precisely the reason they gave for upgrading to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both of which were found (after they had been running for a while) to leak like sieves. Sorry but the initial evidence with Vista is that it doesn't look like it will be much better than previous versions. The "most secure" tag merely acts as a challenge to malicious code writers.

By the way I am not saying other systems (Linux and Mac) don't leak but they are less of a problem simply because of the tiny user base. Vista is the current big target. Short of not connecting to the internet and not installing software there is no such thing as a truly secure system.

f0dder · « **Reply #68 on:** August 06, 2007, 04:50 AM »

If I'd have to give you one reason, it's FAR better security.
-moerl

That's what the kool-aid drinkers say, anyway.

All my mail is done through GMail, so it never even gets to my PC.
-moerl

All it takes is one unpatched IE/FF exploit, one compromised banner server... *boom*. That's not vista-specific though, same problem with 2k/xp.

Unlike many noobs out there, btw, I also leave UAC on. Everybody comlains about how annoying it is, but frankly, you get used to it.
-moerl

I absolutely hate it. It pops up way too often, and frankly I'd rather use a 2k/XP system with a non-administrative account, and either switch to an administrative account or use RunAs. That's more secure anyway, I feel very certain that UAC is going to get exploited.

I mean, come on, it just wants you to press "okay", doesn't even prompt for a password. And most sheep/people will click yes without knowing anyway. Besides, if the point is reached where UAC has to "defend" against something, it's already too late.

Sorry, I'm not buying the "better security" argument, and it wouldn't be reason enough to downgrade to that resource hog of an operating system.

Josh · « **Reply #69 on:** August 06, 2007, 04:58 AM »

UAC Actually does prompt you for a password when running as a standard user. Its just that Vista still defaults to an admin account running in "Admin approval mode" as opposed to a user account running in approval mode.

f0dder · « **Reply #70 on:** August 06, 2007, 05:18 AM »

Thanks for clearing that up, Josh. Doesn't change my mind about it one bit, though

zridling · « **Reply #71 on:** August 06, 2007, 05:09 PM »

moerl, which version of Vista are you using, if I may ask?

Josh · « **Reply #72 on:** August 06, 2007, 05:15 PM »

I dont know about him, but I am using vista ultimate. Apart from application developers not updating code to fix setting storage, I have no real issues.

zridling · « **Reply #73 on:** August 06, 2007, 11:04 PM »

I'm using Vista Business, which I've come to like, except that I'm far more afraid to load just anything on this computer. Imaging the c-drive reliably has been sketchy at best on the 64-bit level, and the one time I did reinstall, I had to call and beg an Indian lady for almost an hour to allow me to reinstall it on my machine! So I don't do as much experimenting as I did on my XP system, where I could virtualize and/or rebuild within an hour or two if needed.

f0dder · « **Reply #74 on:** August 07, 2007, 05:24 AM »

I'm using Vista Business, which I've come to like, except that I'm far more afraid to load just anything on this computer. Imaging the c-drive reliably has been sketchy at best on the 64-bit level, and the one time I did reinstall, I had to call and beg an Indian lady for almost an hour to allow me to reinstall it on my machine! So I don't do as much experimenting as I did on my XP system, where I could virtualize and/or rebuild within an hour or two if needed.
-zridling (August 06, 2007, 11:04 PM)

Yet another reason to stay away from Vista

Poll

Windows 7 due in 2010 — will you hold out and skip Vista?

Author Topic: XP or Vista user — take the poll! (Read 86942 times)