Can we really trust the software we use?
Can we really trust the software we use? |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Can we really trust the software we use?
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 17 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
Trust Microsoft. Trust the government. They are both here to help you. rofl he lies! he lies! *gigglefithiccup* ____________ I has a MiniCity :) http://en-ki-du.myminicity.com | |
ID: 1241802 ·  | |
 ExVolunteer moderator Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,159,607 RAC: 832  | |
|
As far as free antivirus, what do people have against Microsoft Security Essentials? (besides the obvious that it's microsoft) Used in conjunction with weekly manual scans by malwarebytes free, I have not had any issues. | |
| ID: 1241902 · | |
|
I don't implicitly trust Microsoft, but I do prefer their software over many others. But if this missing start button crap is the future of Windows, I may be forced to switch to Linux finally. I've defended nearly every version of Windows, even to some extent Windows ME, but Windows 8 is just too much all at once and not even for the right reasons. (There are, however, a few things in Windows 8 that I really like.) | |
| ID: 1241934 · | |
|
Ex Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,159,607 RAC: 832 | |
|
OT[Just pick a linux without Unity as it's desktop, as that suffers from the same lack of "start" menu... ] | |
| ID: 1241997 · | |
| ID: 1242117 · | |
|
Just other flavours of PCDOS and DRDOS .... | |
| ID: 1242118 · | |
|
Actually, I've used FreeDOS before, and I like it. As an ol' DOS diehard, it might be worth checking out again. | |
| ID: 1242135 · | |
|
In it's day MSDOS 5 was the best OS that MS ever produced. OK MSDOS 6.22 added some bells and whistles and functionality, but 5 worked out of the box and did what it said on the tin. And you could tinker under the bonnet. | |
| ID: 1242140 · | |
In it's day MSDOS 5 was the best OS that MS ever produced. OK MSDOS 6.22 added some bells and whistles and functionality, but 5 worked out of the box and did what it said on the tin. And you could tinker under the bonnet. You missed Win2000 which was a much better choice that staying with Win98 or going to Millennium, and that makes WinXP only a small update. | |
| ID: 1242142 · | |
|
Agree with the listing. Maybe all my computers will stay with Win7 and Server 2008 R2. The thread started off with Google - can it be trusted, now I feel "Can the software industry be trusted?" :Corrected spelling. ____________    | |
| ID: 1242145 · | |
In it's day MSDOS 5 was the best OS that MS ever produced. OK MSDOS 6.22 added some bells and whistles and functionality, but 5 worked out of the box and did what it said on the tin. And you could tinker under the bonnet. Be careful that the list doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The list might have more to do with user psychology than it does with any real empirical truth. Personally, I would say: MSDOS 5 - barebones and brutish MSDOS 6 - Better, 6.22 better still Win 95 - an amazing improvement and a great UI Win 98/SE - Great polish on an already amazing OS Win ME - Meh, not a necessary release, but not horrible as some would insist Win NT - Solid, yet lacking in features and speed Win2k - Solid and polished WinXP - Very solid, minor update to 2k Vista - Great security features with a better, updated UI Win 7 - New standard in solidity and a beautiful glass interface Win 8 - Huh? My desktop is not a tablet! I don't want to see large icons of all my apps installed on a big "start screen"! Where's my Start Menu with search feature? I see a huge learning curve with Windows 8, and in the corporate environment where I work, this is only going to be trouble for our Support Department. Maybe if everyone switches to touch-screens on the desktop, it might make things smoother, but there's just too many people here who don't need it and are too used to doing things "the old way". | |
| ID: 1242152 · | |
|
Don't worry, the new UEFI/EFI will finally do away with the BIOS and will fix everything. | |
| ID: 1242182 · | |
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10324 Credit: 5,092,543 RAC: 6,298 | |
Don't worry, the new UEFI/EFI will finally do away with the BIOS and will fix everything. GDB ____________   | |
| ID: 1242235 · | |
|
What about Window 3.1? | |
| ID: 1242258 · | |
What about Window 3.1? Win 3.11 WFG was a lot better than 3.1 ____________ | |
| ID: 1242265 · | |
What about Window 3.1? Agreed. Though Windows 3.1 was an improvement over Windows 3.0. | |
| ID: 1242271 · | |
|
Hi Volunteer. I fully accept your comments on my initial list. I deliberately left off Win NT versions, and 2000, because they were really seen as Business or Server versions. My shorter list was meant to represent the ones intended for purely home use. | |
| ID: 1242273 · | |
& when the support ends as well as AV companies no longer support it...what then? ..another 6 rigs added to a botnet! ____________ | |
| ID: 1242298 · | |
In addition hardware manufacturers will want to make sure that any future kit will be the latest OS system ready. And of course don't forget the memory manufacturers, every new OS that comes out needs more memory, and of course MS lies through its teeth to you! I have to disagree a bit here. Again, I think this is a case of users being spoiled with faster/newer/cheaper whatever. When XP first came out, if you had 512MB of RAM, you were considered rich. Most people were still running with 64MB or 128MB and things ran fine. Then RAM got cheap and we stuffed more into our systems, some of us found the limitations of our motherboard maxed out at 512MB or 2GB as you said. We saw the speed improvements that came with putting more RAM in and we wondered how we ever got along with "only" 128MB - go quickly got spoiled with the speed increases. I think the same goes for Windows 7. Sure, more RAM makes everything run smoother and less swapping, but the average, causal internet user hardly needs a 3-4GB of RAM system. Case in point; I have my step-father setup with an old Pentium 4 3.06GHz CPU (533MHz FSB, w/HT) and the motherboard is maxed out with a full 2GB of RAM running Windows 7. All he does is run AOL for his email, play POGO.com games and watch DVDs (I hooked up his computer to his 27" LCD TV). He doesn't have any issues with low memory, though things do run slowly due to his outdated CPU. Though with today's software having an increasing demand on RAM, I've seen quite frequently cases where users in my company are quickly approaching the limits of 32bit computing, and I'm trying to push the rest of our team in getting 64bit supported and in wide use - preferably with 8GB of RAM since RAM is so cheap. At the end of the day there is a worldwide cartel between the OS producers, the hardware suppliers, and the memory factories, to try and force everybody to spend money to update everything every 3 years of so for their own corporate benefits. And don't let's forget the processor people here. How often is it that every new motherboard they bring out whether Intel or AMD, there is always a new socket configuration, which means you can't upgrade an earlier board without buying a new one. Progress is happening much more quickly these days, so it stands to reason that hardware changes happen more frequently, giving a shorter lifespan to existing systems. While its easier to say that every company is out to screw the end user, I just don't think that's the reality of the situation. Unfortunately, the computer industry is also a victim of its own success. Because progress is happening so quickly since the PC has entered people's homes, computers have become just another throw-away device. With the CPU integrating everything from the memory controller, to the video chip, to a PCI Express controller... the more things you add to the CPU, the more pins are required to allows those components to address the rest of the system. I don't think there's an engineer alive that could design a universal socket that could last for 10 years while allowing for any future integration into the CPU alone. The last time Intel tried designing a CPU connector that was supposed to be the last we'd ever need, Slot 1 died off after just two generations of CPUs (Pentium II and Pentium III). Then again, there's also the same perception of "forced" upgrades or spoiled users. I just gave an example earlier of my step-father who is running just fine on an old Pentium 4 machine. The question is: what do you do and how much do you want newer/faster/better? One doesn't need the latest and greatest, but we convince ourselves that we do, and the marketing departments all push us along toward upgrades for a better experience. The marketing departments can't convince us of anything we aren't already contemplating in the back of our minds and are looking for justification in spending our dollars. Of course, the older we get, the more we tire of the justifications, but we tend to do it anyway because we know its progress (then we complain about it later). The truth is folks, that the general public are being screwed from backend to breakfast time 24/7 by the computer industry worldwide, and it is high time that we called a halt to it. I run 8 rigs, 2 are win 7 out of curiosity, the rest are Win XP, and they are staying that way. I don't think the general public is being screwed at all. As stated above, most people see the computer as a device that needs to be upgraded or its performance degrades (not even remotely true). Much of this perception is taken advantage of by the marketing departments, but the only way to battle that is user education - something that most users don't care to learn. They just want technology to work, and if that means buying a new device, they'll do it. No one is going to stop the advancement of progress by refusing to buy upgrades. They'll just get left behind while the rest of the world keeps moving forward. In the microcosm of the user's world, its hard to see the progress and easy to question where we're going if they haven't a clue, and it doesn't help if they don't understand the technology as it gets more sophisticated, so its easy to claim that no real progress is happening, but the viewpoint is ultimately very, very wrong. I am still amazed by what today's machines can do compared to 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, etc., and I'm always impressed by the way users tend to use their devices, and the way they wish their devices would work to make things easier. Progress is the demand of the users and not an illusion created by marketing. If you're not demanding progress, you're complaining about the speed of it and getting left behind. [old man rant] Now who invented those infernal "AM radios" and how do they make my life easier? [/old man rant] :-P | |
| ID: 1242345 · | |
when the support ends as well as AV companies no longer support it...what then? AV software supports any computer whatever OS they happen to be running. Whether that OS is supported by the OS supplier is another matter. | |
| ID: 1242358 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Can we really trust the software we use?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
