Please avoid Vista like the plague

[Saucy Lemon]

Any other plan is foolhardy.

Alias

Thanks Alias. I think some hardware / software solutioning for security *is*
in order. But you are right a great deal here, in that it's the person
running the computer who is most responsible for its security. Nevertheless,
the hardware and software can be aligned so that if the user wants the
system to remain as secure as can be [under the circumstances], they can be.
Windows Vista moves a long way in that direction [as computing
goes],especially 64-bit Vista on DEP capable and enabled hardware.

Saucy Lemon

 

[Alias]

Any other plan is foolhardy.

Alias

Thanks Alias. I think some hardware / software solutioning for security
*is* in order. But you are right a great deal here, in that it's the
person running the computer who is most responsible for its security.
Nevertheless, the hardware and software can be aligned so that if the
user wants the system to remain as secure as can be [under the
circumstances], they can be. Windows Vista moves a long way in that
direction [as computing goes],especially 64-bit Vista on DEP capable and
enabled hardware.

Saucy Lemon

Don't get me wrong; I will be buying Vista. I just plan to wait so I
don't have to spend hours/days trying to make it work. In the meantime,
I am learning Ubuntu, a truly secure OS, unlike anything MS has ever made.

Alias

 

[Saucy Lemon]

You are contradicting yourself here by saying that. Ubuntu is no more secure
than the person running it. And, let's face it, some of Linux's security
really is by obscurity as Linux has not had to bear the hot hell heat that
Windows has .. .. When an OS has had a hundred thousand programs written
against it and has evolved to resist them, only then can it be declared
somewhere near "secure". Linux just hasn't been put to that intense test.
And as obscure as it is, Linux has it vulnerabilites. Just look at the RH
list, the most reputible distro has more holes than Swiss cheese.

But we digress, as this is not COLA, so say what you will, I won't get
further into a Linux advocacy thing, easy as it is to knock Linux.

Saucy Lemon

 

[Alias]

You are contradicting yourself here by saying that. Ubuntu is no more
secure than the person running it. And, let's face it, some of Linux's
security really is by obscurity as Linux has not had to bear the hot
hell heat that Windows has .. .. When an OS has had a hundred thousand
programs written against it and has evolved to resist them, only then
can it be declared somewhere near "secure". Linux just hasn't been put
to that intense test. And as obscure as it is, Linux has it
vulnerabilites. Just look at the RH list, the most reputible distro has
more holes than Swiss cheese.

But we digress, as this is not COLA, so say what you will, I won't get
further into a Linux advocacy thing, easy as it is to knock Linux.

Saucy Lemon

You won't get into to it because you're wrong and you know it. Even if I
were stupid enough to allow malware to infest my Ubuntu computer, say a
thousand times, I can create a new user account and nuke the infested
one (or just leave it alone) and be about my business. Or, I could
reload Ubuntu (less than two hours) entirely. That said, I use an anti
virus program on Ubuntu and it hasn't had one update in a month. My
Avast on my Windows machines has an update almost every day and today it
had two!

Also, that said, I have never gotten a virus on *any* machine since 1997
when I went on line.

Alias

 

[Saucy Lemon]

You won't get into to it because you're wrong and you know it.

I got one virus once, when I ignored a warning to patch while running a web
server. If I had honoured the notice, I'd have not gotten the virus.
Otherwise I've not one virus and I've been on the 'Net and running Windows
since 1996 and almost every day too. My secret, of course, was to up the
default security settings of IE. I don't let scripting run by default, which
is ironic considering how much time I devoted to JavaScript.

I won't get into a win/lin debate because that's a COLA thing. So "No
comment".

Saucy Lemon

 

[Alias]

I got one virus once, when I ignored a warning to patch while running a
web server. If I had honoured the notice, I'd have not gotten the virus.
Otherwise I've not one virus and I've been on the 'Net and running
Windows since 1996 and almost every day too. My secret, of course, was
to up the default security settings of IE. I don't let scripting run by
default, which is ironic considering how much time I devoted to JavaScript.

I never use IE unless I have to because the web site I want to visit
doesn't do Fire Fox.

I won't get into a win/lin debate because that's a COLA thing. So "No
comment".

Saucy Lemon

What does COLA mean? A soft drink?

Alias

 

[Saucy Lemon]

INLINE:

I never use IE unless I have to because the web site I want to visit
doesn't do Fire Fox.

When the Linux carrot doesn't work, try FF? FireFox is too raw and untried.
The security holes are usually of the glaring sort when they appear. IE7's
holes are getting much more esoteric and difficult to exploit. But in the
unlikely event that I were to use FF, I'd disable scripting generally and
then only allow it on a per site basis.

But since IE7 is more secure than FF etc. etc. I remain with IE7.

What does COLA mean? A soft drink?

Alias

You don't know !? COLA comp.os.linux.advocacy It's a newgroup that
supposedly adovocates Linux, but is really just an ongoing Windows vs. Linux
battle with a heck of a lot of ad hominem.

Saucy Lemon

 

[BSchnur]

When the Linux carrot doesn't work, try FF? FireFox is too raw and untried.

The security holes are usually of the glaring sort when they appear. IE7's
holes are getting much more esoteric and difficult to exploit. But in the
unlikely event that I were to use FF, I'd disable scripting generally and
then only allow it on a per site basis.

How much have you used current iterations of Firefox? I much prefer
1.509 and 2.01 to IE (either 6x or 7x iterations). I use both.
Characterizing Firefox as too raw and untried -- sort of like
characterizing Vista as too raw and untried. I am not saying either
statement is true here.

 

[Saucy Lemon]

I simply do not use FF. It feels too lightweight. Security-wise it's no
heck. No sooner as they were touting it as "the answer", gapping holes were
discovered.

In the meantime, IE7 came along and is just as good at some things and even
better at others. IE7 has decidedly superior tabs (Quick Tabs) and much
better phishing filter set-up.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to bite on the FF diversion. I don't use it,
don't like it, and don't want to discuss it.

Saucy Lemon

 

[Alias]

INLINE:




When the Linux carrot doesn't work, try FF? FireFox is too raw and
untried. The security holes are usually of the glaring sort when they
appear. IE7's holes are getting much more esoteric and difficult to
exploit. But in the unlikely event that I were to use FF, I'd disable
scripting generally and then only allow it on a per site basis.

But since IE7 is more secure than FF etc. etc. I remain with IE7.

LOL! *That's* funny!

You don't know !? COLA comp.os.linux.advocacy It's a newgroup that
supposedly adovocates Linux, but is really just an ongoing Windows vs.
Linux battle with a heck of a lot of ad hominem.

Saucy Lemon

You learn something new every day.

Alias

 

[Alias]

I simply do not use FF. It feels too lightweight. Security-wise it's no
heck. No sooner as they were touting it as "the answer", gapping holes
were discovered.

And immediately patched.

In the meantime, IE7 came along and is just as good at some things and
even better at others. IE7 has decidedly superior tabs (Quick Tabs) and
much better phishing filter set-up.

First thing I did with FF is turn off the phishing crap.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to bite on the FF diversion. I don't use
it, don't like it, and don't want to discuss it.

Saucy Lemon

You like IE7? That says it all. I refuse to install it.

Alias

 

[Michael Palumbo]

Your bias is showing too.


Just because that is your opinion, it does not mean that that is the only
way to go about learning about something. You don't like what people
post, have the self control to ignore them or plonk their posts.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Nope. Just CLUELESS CUNTS LIKE YOU too stupid to work it out. Thank the
bittorent brigade."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

Agreed, it's not the only way, but I've read a lot about many things but
don't believe that puts me in a position to give advice on any of the things
I've read about. I've read a bit about piloting, but that doesn't mean I'm
going to critique an airplane or tell an aspiring pilot how to fly, or what
to fly.

I was wondering, what am I biased toward or against that is showing in my
post???

Am I biased toward Vista? God no, plenty wrong with it, but plenty of good
things too . . . though I am biased against those that choose to make
statements about anything they have never actually used.

Take anything anyone (yes, I put myself in the 'anyone' category) says about
anything with a grain of salt. If you want to know about something, don't
rely on a third party, find out for yourself.

That's the only advice I give these days, really . . .

Mic

 

[Michael Palumbo]

Your bias is showing too.


Just because that is your opinion, it does not mean that that is the only
way to go about learning about something. You don't like what people
post, have the self control to ignore them or plonk their posts.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Nope. Just CLUELESS CUNTS LIKE YOU too stupid to work it out. Thank the
bittorent brigade."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

Oh, I am going to take your advice, however and simply ignore pointless
threads like this one from now on. I've wasted too much time on this
already.

Mic

 

[BSchnur]

I simply do not use FF. It feels too lightweight. Security-wise it's no

heck. No sooner as they were touting it as "the answer", gapping holes were
discovered.

I thought you were making a 'scientific' judgment regarding the
shortcomings of FF -- no big deal.

OK -- so that is a personal preference thing -- I can accept that. FF
has been my preferred browser for a while, though I use IE (both 6 and
7) quite a bit.

 

[Saran]

Boy I couldn't agree with you more. I am still running DOS3.1! It's
fast as hell on my new machine. O'course, I can't do much, but it
sure produces a directory list f*a*s*t!

-Frank

No I think the OP has some good points about Vista. I'm an IT
professional and just spent 4 hours with a new Vista machine, trying to
get several applications the customer needed on the machine to work,
most of which would not install, nad those that did, would not run, not
even with compatibility modes.

To top that off, they changed the naming conventions of many basic icon
and menu labels... half of classic view control panel items have been
renamed... all of which just leads to massive headaches.

Those of you who say you enjoy it, do this: Right click o nthe desktop
top, go to "Personalize" (yep, no Properties" like you'd expect there to
be...) and go to appearance, and you get a familiar screen where you cna
choose "Windows Standard" to get a Win 2000 view (or "Windows Classic"
for 9x style), thne rigth click on the task bar and go to start menu
properties and change that to classic.

What have you got, Win 2000 with newer icons. The sole reason I can see
for the so called "program incompatibilities" can be traced to who Vista
handles DLL registrations, which most installers do towards the end of a
setup cycle. It seems Vista sabatoged the "old" method, rather than
providing backwards compatibility in that department.

Many other things in Vista seems to be directly carried over from
previous Windows. All the talk about the "brand new" architecture or
"new core" is a load of bs. Sure they wrote some things, but it's overly
obvious to me they used the same basic modified-NT core...

In other words, Vista is nothing mroe than a botched XP SP3 with a new
"skin" (MS's own version of Win Blinds if you will) and new icons, and a
couple new goodies, any of which have been around from other makers,
including the "flying windows" task switcher (which does NOT appear to
be on by default, instead I was greated by the same old swticher since
Win 2000.)

Underneath the nice new skin is the same old Windows, with something
renamed and some things tweaked, many which result in an OS that's
difficult to use and get used to, especially if you've bene using
Windows for a very long time.

And then theres the extra DRM... Windows Vista... all in all, no thanks,
I'd rather not waste my money for something I already have.

 

[Alias]

No I think the OP has some good points about Vista. I'm an IT
professional and just spent 4 hours with a new Vista machine, trying to
get several applications the customer needed on the machine to work,
most of which would not install, nad those that did, would not run, not
even with compatibility modes.

To top that off, they changed the naming conventions of many basic icon
and menu labels... half of classic view control panel items have been
renamed... all of which just leads to massive headaches.

Those of you who say you enjoy it, do this: Right click o nthe desktop
top, go to "Personalize" (yep, no Properties" like you'd expect there to
be...) and go to appearance, and you get a familiar screen where you cna
choose "Windows Standard" to get a Win 2000 view (or "Windows Classic"
for 9x style), thne rigth click on the task bar and go to start menu
properties and change that to classic.

What have you got, Win 2000 with newer icons. The sole reason I can see
for the so called "program incompatibilities" can be traced to who Vista
handles DLL registrations, which most installers do towards the end of a
setup cycle. It seems Vista sabatoged the "old" method, rather than
providing backwards compatibility in that department.

Many other things in Vista seems to be directly carried over from
previous Windows. All the talk about the "brand new" architecture or
"new core" is a load of bs. Sure they wrote some things, but it's overly
obvious to me they used the same basic modified-NT core...

In other words, Vista is nothing mroe than a botched XP SP3 with a new
"skin" (MS's own version of Win Blinds if you will) and new icons, and a
couple new goodies, any of which have been around from other makers,
including the "flying windows" task switcher (which does NOT appear to
be on by default, instead I was greated by the same old swticher since
Win 2000.)

Underneath the nice new skin is the same old Windows, with something
renamed and some things tweaked, many which result in an OS that's
difficult to use and get used to, especially if you've bene using
Windows for a very long time.

And then theres the extra DRM... Windows Vista... all in all, no thanks,
I'd rather not waste my money for something I already have.

So, one could say that Vista is the Windows Me of NT and was only
released to make money?

Alias

 

[Saran]

So, one could say that Vista is the Windows Me of NT and was only
released to make money?

Alias

More or less. They just took more elaborate messures this time to make
it less obvious with the fancy "skin" (Aero Glass) which ammitedly makes
things looks nice but realyl does slow things down. Even in classic
mode, for a Dual core Duo, it seemed slower than my own P4 2.4 which
only hasa quater of the ram to boot, and half the video power the
custmers spankin new rig had. That alone makes the situation oh so sad.

 

[Russ]

Get on with the times, I'm also IT Pro MCSE, MCSA, MCSDBA. Do you honestly
think your going to talk your customers out of going with the flow? I doubt
that. Personally, I got board with XP, needed some new challenges. As an IT
Pro, you of all people should know the learn'n never stops. Well its a good
thing the old saying doesn't go "If it ain't broke don't fix it". We'd still
have stone wheels.

 

[Saran]

Get on with the times, I'm also IT Pro MCSE, MCSA, MCSDBA. Do you
honestly think your going to talk your customers out of going with
the flow? I doubt that.

Well thats just it, many people that have tried Vista that I know and
have talked to, just don't want it, after they see it for what it really
is: an XP/2003 cleverly disgiused and pumped with mounds of Content
Protection, all in the name of new technology.

Personally, I got board with XP, needed some new challenges.

Well on the view of making money off all the progrems there are with it,
then you have a point. However, from a standpoint of how to build your
new system, you cna etiher go with Vista and a multi core system, and
get around the same speed you have with XP on your P4, or stick with XP
Pro (or even 2003) and marry that to a multi core system instead and get
a super fast system, with all of the extra cludges and needly DRM.

As an IT Pro, you of all people should know the
learn'n never stops. Well its a good thing the old saying doesn't go
"If it ain't broke don't fix it". We'd still have stone wheels.

Actually that IS how the old saying goes. Updating a system, installing
patches, et al, is one thing, moving to what is actually an inferior
system, in terms of use. In fact, under the surface, the only really new
technology is DRM, the type that really does threated certain freedoms.
I mean where does it end? [1]

I don't mind new technology at all, I have always greeted it with my
arms wide open, but as soon as it threatens my freedoms, pushed by
certain media companies [2] that have been collaberating with the folks
at Redmond, then thats where I, and many others it seems, draw the line.

If you want to deal with al lthe excessive Content Protection, HDCP and
other DRMs then feel free.

I will of course support Vista as an IT service I preform, as I already
have started doing, but it doesn't mean I have to use it my self. I will
run it in a virtual machine for personal and IT reasons, but thats it.



[1]
I don't know about you, but I really don't want to be told what I can do
with media I've purchased. That and the DRM does nothing to stop the
piracy thats there... you even have HD rips of TV shows and Movies that
look damn good and some are compressed rather well, making downloads
tolerable but still yeilding better quality than a 480i DVD.

It's just the same dam nthing as with the gun laws... imposing
restictions and makign it harder to get something for those who got the
goods legally anyways, while those who always got them illegally, still
do. It's no different. Well, at least gun restrictions can potentially
prevent someone from getting hurt, but i nthe realm of technology and
digital media, it just makes life harder for whose who try to play by
the rules.


[2]
Companies that should never have been alloted such control in the first
place, and in many cases do in fact infinge on our rights, and some
cases, like the Sony Root-Kit, have been down right criminal, and as an
added bonus, providing a cloaking mechism hackers and malware writters
to take advantage of.

The Sony RK was just the beginning it seems. Vista is obviously the next
step in their endevor to control things more tightly.

 

[Saran]

Get on with the times, I'm also IT Pro MCSE, MCSA, MCSDBA. Do you
honestly think your going to talk your customers out of going with
the flow? I doubt that.

Well thats just it, many people that have tried Vista that I know and
have talked to, just don't want it, after they see it for what it really
is: an XP/2003 cleverly disgiused and pumped with mounds of Content
Protection, all in the name of new technology.

Personally, I got board with XP, needed some new challenges.

Well on the view of making money off all the problems there are with it,
then you have a point. However, from a standpoint of how to build your
new system, you cna etiher go with Vista and a multi core system, and
get around the same speed you have with XP on your P4, or stick with XP
Pro (or even 2003) and marry that to a multi core system instead and get
a super fast system, with all of the extra cludges and needly DRM.

As an IT Pro, you of all people should know the
learn'n never stops. Well its a good thing the old saying doesn't go
"If it ain't broke don't fix it". We'd still have stone wheels.

Actually that IS how the old saying goes. Updating a system, installing
patches, et al, is one thing, moving to what is actually an inferior
system, in terms of use. In fact, under the surface, the only really new
technology is DRM, the type that really does threated certain freedoms.
I mean where does it end? [1]

I don't mind new technology at all, I have always greeted it with my
arms wide open, but as soon as it threatens my freedoms, pushed by
certain media companies [2] that have been collaberating with the folks
at Redmond, then thats where I, and many others it seems, draw the line.

If you want to deal with al lthe excessive Content Protection, HDCP and
other DRMs then feel free.

I will of course support Vista as an IT service I preform, as I already
have started doing, but it doesn't mean I have to use it my self. I will
run it in a virtual machine for personal and IT reasons, but thats it.



[1]
I don't know about you, but I really don't want to be told what I can do
with media I've purchased. That and the DRM does nothing to stop the
piracy thats there... you even have HD rips of TV shows and Movies that
look damn good and some are compressed rather well, making downloads
tolerable but still yeilding better quality than a 480i DVD.

It's just the same dam nthing as with the gun laws... imposing
restictions and makign it harder to get something for those who got the
goods legally anyways, while those who always got them illegally, still
do. It's no different. Well, at least gun restrictions can potentially
prevent someone from getting hurt, but i nthe realm of technology and
digital media, it just makes life harder for whose who try to play by
the rules.


[2]
Companies that should never have been alloted such control in the first
place, and in many cases do in fact infinge on our rights, and some
cases, like the Sony Root-Kit, have been down right criminal, and as an
added bonus, providing a cloaking mechism hackers and malware writters
to take advantage of.

The Sony RK was just the beginning it seems. Vista is obviously the next
step in their endevor to control things more tightly.