Not sure they'd appreciate the suggestions i'd make after trying Vista!

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Not sure they'd appreciate the suggestions i'd make after trying Vista!

;))) eh Simonator - Happy New Year Mate

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Same to you, and to anyone else who hasn't filtered me, happy new year to you both. ;-)

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Not sure they'd appreciate the suggestions i'd make after trying Vista!

The only suggestion I'd make after using Vista is "kill off XP sooner!".

Not sure they'd appreciate the suggestions i'd make after trying Vista!

The only suggestion I'd make after using Vista is "kill off XP sooner!".

comment I have after trying Vi$ta: "What were you thinking? This s**cks worse than XP!"

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

Not sure they'd appreciate the suggestions i'd make after trying Vista!

The only suggestion I'd make after using Vista is "kill off XP sooner!".

comment I have after trying Vi$ta: "What were you thinking? This s**cks worse than XP!"

Really? XP wasn't so bad.

P.S. I was being facetious with my previous comment.

XP has its problems, yes.. but at least it doesnt conflict itself into continual Blue Screens of Death like ME did. I'm not going to be trying Vista tho, because by the time I have the $$ to get it, it'll be outdated and replaced with at least 3 new OS's. I got XP before child support started eating my paychecks.

---

The Universe doesnt always give you what you want... But it ALWAYS gives you what you need.

XP has its problems, yes.. but at least it doesnt conflict itself into continual Blue Screens of Death like ME did. I'm not going to be trying Vista tho, because by the time I have the $$ to get it, it'll be outdated and replaced with at least 3 new OS's. I got XP before child support started eating my paychecks.

Yeah, but all OSes have their problems, just some more than others.

I know I'll fight a losing battle, but I actually have a Windows ME machine that works well. The biggest problem I have with the machine is that it is a Pentium III 1GHz that is using a passive cooling solution (just a heat sink) inside a microITX case, half height, and no active cooling to pull air into the case or out of the case, so most crashes are heat related.

If I run it in a very cool environment, it runs as smoothly as Windows 98SE. There's a few features of ME that I really don't care for, and I still prefer 98SE over ME, but ME isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

...and I feel Vista gets a bad rap. I think it is a superior OS when it comes to security, and I like many of the features offered in Vista which I feel makes it better than XP (not that XP was bad in any way!). The only legitimate complaint IMO about Vista is its RAM footprint, but with RAM being so cheap anyway, I don't see how that's really a problem - not to mention Vista utilizes the RAM more productively than any previous Windows predecessor, and its searching and indexing allows for easier and faster finding of files which helps the user's productivity, so I think its justified. If one were to turn off some or all of these features, then Vista uses only slightly more RAM than XP.

...but if they want to make Windows 7 have less of a RAM footprint, who am I to argue? As long as they keep SuperFetch and the Indexing tool - and yes, even UAC, then I'll be happy.

Its hard to have blatant "security flaws" when any other OS of choice other than Windows isn't being exploited by the entire hacker community as it has been deemed 'not worth it'.

Says who?

Or 'not worth it' because *nix systems are too difficult a target?

What runs the worlds supercomputers and internet websites for example?

The range of hardware supported should make no difference to 'security'. One exception is for 8-bit and 16-bit systems that don't have any sort of 'protected mode' but then again, I don't know of any Windows system that runs on those...

The hardware range shouldn't make a difference, but the drivers used to make that hardware work can. A likewise, any other piece of software can have adverse affects as well.

Then you don't know the issues about not having a kernel 'protected mode'?...

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

8 bit - Windows version 1, 2
16 bit - Windows version 3.0, 3.1 (the first really successful Windoze version, BTW - or, at least, the first version that didn't take a half hour to load!) Win 3.1 also ran in "real Mode", an 8-bit mode... post-Win95 newcomer?

And those were single user systems where an application had to deliberately release control back to the "OS". No preemption.

Interestingly, no viruses either.

So why are there viruses for the later versions of Windows?

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Its hard to have blatant "security flaws" when any other OS of choice other than Windows isn't being exploited by the entire hacker community as it has been deemed 'not worth it'.

Says who?

Or 'not worth it' because *nix systems are too difficult a target?

What runs the worlds supercomputers and internet websites for example?

'Not worth it' because no one runs them except websites and supercomputers. Most criminally minded people are bottom feaders, going after the ignorant of the flock. Windows was designed to be easy, so even the most gullible of users can be found using it, which are easy to dupe and scam.

The range of hardware supported should make no difference to 'security'. One exception is for 8-bit and 16-bit systems that don't have any sort of 'protected mode' but then again, I don't know of any Windows system that runs on those...

The hardware range shouldn't make a difference, but the drivers used to make that hardware work can. A likewise, any other piece of software can have adverse affects as well.

Then you don't know the issues about not having a kernel 'protected mode'?...

I know that having a protected mode kernel is a hard thing to implement when the platform is designed to be the easiest and most user-friendly to use in the world (it may not always achieve that goal, but its still leaps and bounds beyond most - and I personally don't find the Mac OS to be very user-friendly despite all the Mac-fanatics claiming its superiority over Windows).

However, last I checked, Windows 2000, XP and Vista all have most of the kernel in 'protected mode'.

8 bit - Windows version 1, 2
16 bit - Windows version 3.0, 3.1 (the first really successful Windoze version, BTW - or, at least, the first version that didn't take a half hour to load!) Win 3.1 also ran in "real Mode", an 8-bit mode... post-Win95 newcomer?

And those were single user systems where an application had to deliberately release control back to the "OS". No preemption.

Interestingly, no viruses either.

So why are there viruses for the later versions of Windows?

You shock me Martin. I thought your knowledge of older systems was more complete than that.

In fact, there were viruses for 8bit OSes (early CP/M) and 16bit OSes such as DOS and Windows 3.1. The method of infection was much different back then, as the Internet wasn't as prevalent as it is now, so infection required giving someone an infected floppy, or having access to the system when the person wasn't around and writing the virus right on their system. ...and when Windows 3.1 was popular, and the BBSs or ISPs (such as Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc) were all efficient methods of duping people into downloading something onto their system to infect it.

In fact, when DOS was on its way out, there were over 6,000+ known viruses for the platform, including trojans, key loggers, TSRs, MBR infectors, WordPerfect scripts, Lotus 1 2 3 scripts, etc. Not all viruses infect MS OSes or products. Many find flaws or features designed for innocent uses to use for their own nefarious purposes.

Most viruses back then were very destructive, because the hacker mindset was that it was funny to destroy people's installation, or if the hacker was good enough, to destroy the MBR or even permanently overwrite the BIOS (semi-newer systems that supported the ability to flash the BIOS).

Hackers these days find it a greater benefit to exploit a user's machine by turning it into a "zombie" machine and making it send out marketing scams to make the hacker even more money. After all, why destroy what can make you very profitable?

8 bit - Windows version 1, 2
16 bit - Windows version 3.0, 3.1 (the first really successful Windoze version, BTW - or, at least, the first version that didn't take a half hour to load!) Win 3.1 also ran in "real Mode", an 8-bit mode... post-Win95 newcomer?

And those were single user systems where an application had to deliberately release control back to the "OS". No preemption.

Interestingly, no viruses either.

So why are there viruses for the later versions of Windows?

You shock me Martin. I thought your knowledge of older systems was more complete than that.

Yes. Shocking.

---

me@rescam.org

IMO, if developers can reduce the amount of crap in the registry, over-writing modules/dll/files used by other programs and just plain staying out of *:\windows folder in essence a stand alone product the end-user wouldn't have so many problems outside of security. What would make a perfect OS? and consider the amount of memory and HDD space and cpu power available today. "Older" OS's worried about getting anything to run without crashes while newer systems worry about security. Imagine MS saying "Ok here is the perfect OS, develop Good Stuff© but you can't have access to the windows folder or any other folder in it or even the registry!!!

---

"Red Warrior Needs Food Badly"

Its hard to have blatant "security flaws" when any other OS of choice other than Windows isn't being exploited by the entire hacker community as it has been deemed 'not worth it'.

Says who?

Or 'not worth it' because *nix systems are too difficult a target?

What runs the worlds supercomputers and internet websites for example?

No, it's not worth it, because there's far fewer Linux/Unix machines out there - introduce a Linux/unix virus and you hit only tens of thousands of machines, introduce a Win virus and you hit tens of millions of machines, particularly if your virus hits all Win varieties!

The range of hardware supported should make no difference to 'security'. One exception is for 8-bit and 16-bit systems that don't have any sort of 'protected mode' but then again, I don't know of any Windows system that runs on those...

The hardware range shouldn't make a difference, but the drivers used to make that hardware work can. A likewise, any other piece of software can have adverse affects as well.
Then you don't know the issues about not having a kernel 'protected mode'?...

Cheers,
Martin

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

8 bit - Windows version 1, 2
16 bit - Windows version 3.0, 3.1 (the first really successful Windoze version, BTW - or, at least, the first version that didn't take a half hour to load!) Win 3.1 also ran in "real Mode", an 8-bit mode... post-Win95 newcomer?

And those were single user systems where an application had to deliberately release control back to the "OS". No preemption.

Interestingly, no viruses either.

So why are there viruses for the later versions of Windows?

Cheers,
Martin

Umm, back in the days of intense use of those systems, there was intense virus activity on all of them...

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

Not sure they'd appreciate the suggestions i'd make after trying Vista!

The only suggestion I'd make after using Vista is "kill off XP sooner!".

comment I have after trying Vi$ta: "What were you thinking? This s**cks worse than XP!"

Really? XP wasn't so bad.

P.S. I was being facetious with my previous comment.

I meant "This s**cks worse than XP did when it first came out"...

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

FWIW, the official beta can be downloaded tomorrow (1/9/09) from M$...

[add]
It'll require that you burn it to a DVD, so be prepared for a very large download (probably beyond dial-upper capacity!)[/add]

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

FWIW, the official beta can be downloaded tomorrow (1/9/09) from M$...

[add]
It'll require that you burn it to a DVD, so be prepared for a very large download (probably beyond dial-upper capacity!)[/add]

do you have the URL :o)

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Found this microsoft website

MSDN

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010