"Rock" wrote >
1. A separate disk is transportable.
A backup is transportable. Laptops don't have two disks. Is your
suggestion to then store all data on a removable drive such as USB? Image
the whole system onto usb. A neophyte is going to take the drive out
themself for internal drives?
2. Your desktop or laptop (or both) may be in for repairs but you still
have your data. No need for the PC repair shop to do a backup.
Take out the drive before sending it in for repair. Never send in your own
drive for a hardware repair. If you must send the drive in for some sort of
software related problem, then yes a separate drive for data has some
advantages. But that can be accomplished just as well by keeping data on a
separate partition of the same drive. Image the partition, then remove it.
A laptop doesn't have two drives. A reputable shop will backup the data
anyway, but you'd be wiser to delete the user data and restore from a backup
later.
3. You buy a new computer. No need to tranfer everything over - you just
plug in your data drive.
Yes there are some advantages to this. An image/clone of a data partition
accomplishes the same thing.
4. Windows gets corrupted or just gets clogged up like it tends to do
every few years. No problems just reformat the drive and load it again. No
worries that you missed a file during back up and it has now been written
over during the format.
I disagree with your contention here. A properly maintained system does not
need to get "clogged up" and doesn't need to be reformated / OS reinstalled
every few years. The one I'm typing this on has been running for 4+ years,
and currently has two installations of Vista, along with XP. Runs just as
well as it did before. The reformat / reinstall mantra is a legacy from
the win9x days and driven hard by current tech support to reduce support
costs.
For the home user a drive imaging/cloning program with an external drive,
and restore from there if something smashes the system. A properly thought
out and executed backup solution will ensure you don't miss a file during
backup. These can easily be set up to run as a scheduled task.
Most operators (home users) don't have a clue what goes on behind the
screen and how to configure a system, let alone install and update an
anti-virus system. Most just want to do simple things like check their
email, surf the net, use a word processor and upload their pics from their
digital camera. They want to use their PC like they do their televison.
They don't want to (or can't) lift the hood and work on the motor.
The new Vista still doesn't have a built in anti - virus system. Kind of
like buying a car without the front wheels. No problem, there's a guy down
the road who'll sell you the front wheels.
There are at least two free AV programs that run well on Vista right now,
AVG and Avast. They work well on XP too. UAC in Vista helps significantly
to cut down on the attack surfaces. The firewall is highly configurable.
Out of the box install is much more secure that XP, and has received high
marks from many in the security arena. How does this make Vista worse than
XP?
MS would face major anti-trust litigation if they included an anti-virus
program built in. Windows Live One Care, for the neophyte user, is a good
solution. It was being Beta tested in XP and available for XP; there will
be a version compatible with Vista around RTM. These kinds of automated
programs help the new person who isn't technically oriented.
Storing your data at a remote location doesn't help you with the malware
issue. Malware infests the system, the data with malware is saved, on a
remote system, the computer is wiped and OS reinstalled, then infested data
is restored. The points is if the user doesn't practice security in depth
and safe hex, they'll have continual problems. And there is the cost of the
service.
What I tried to say is that virus attacks going to become worse. Viruses
will become more malicious. I imagine that virus writers must be jumping
for joy in hearing that Microsoft are bring out yet another operating
system that allows them (the virus writers) to easily write new viruses
for.
They certainly are getting craftier. The battle will always be on, but UAC
is a good step forward. But how is it that MS bringing out a new OS allows
them to "easily write new viruses" for it? Yes MS OSs are the big target.
And a new OS presents a nice challenge. You can never stop that cycle.
When you store personal data on a remote server you store it using a
username and password. The same as your bank stores your account data. All
my most important information (clients and company documents) is stored in
databases on remote servers. Data is continually added by myself, my
clients and employees - where else can I store this important data? On a
cd under my bed?
I wouldn't trust my data to that kind of system. Banks with all the outside
monitoring and regulations still can have problems. But these data storage
services don't have any outside monitoring. And certainly for the casual
user who knows nothing, there are way too many ways they can be taken. You
give all that data to some unknown person to be stored in some unknown
location? If they have physical control of the media, a user name and
password doesn't mean didley.
My 5-year-old PC has win-ME and was hosed. :-(