 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
Or more: Bugs with a graphical user interface
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
Actually at home I use the version with only 95 bugs and at work we increased this to 2000.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgamensch
With XP you just have a perfect breeding place for viruses, but nothing else. Bigger, newer, worse........ |
Do you have any shred of evidence others Window OSes are more secure? I'm quite willing to bet that if it was investigated, WinXP would actually be one of the better OSes security-wise. NTFS, data encryption, user policy, auto-update, built-in firewall, etc are all vastly superior to Win9x/ME.
The reason why there are so many viruses and the like for XP is because XP is the most popular OS: if you were a virus-maker and wanted to do as much harm as possible, would you design your viruses for the widely used WinXP or for the deprecated Win95?
Anyway, the security of a system mostly depends on the enduser, not on the OS. Stability of an OS is first and foremost determined by things like memory management, driver management, general quality of the code, etc. In this sense XP is by far superior to older OSes: I've used it day-in day-out for almost 2 years now and have never had to reinstall and never had a single BSOD. Back in the days of Win9x, I had to reinstall every few months and got more BSODs that you can shake a stick at...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Do you have any shred of evidence others Window OSes are more secure? I'm quite willing to bet that if it was investigated, WinXP would actually be one of the better OSes security-wise. NTFS, data encryption, user policy, auto-update, built-in firewall, etc are all vastly superior to Win9x/ME.
|
Just check the statistics on the pages of some of the free virus-providers. You see how many users with which operating systems are nonnecting and downloading the latest version.
User policy, which is flawed and not really working
built-in firewall, which you can bypass
data-encryption, which anyone but you (user) can bypass.
auto-update.........this is the best joke: You install ~1Gbyte of rubbish to be forced to download another 80+Mgbyte afterwards. That is the best joke, thanks for reminding me...........
Was good for a laugh again  
quote:
The reason why there are so many viruses and the like for XP is because XP is the most popular OS: if you were a virus-maker and wanted to do as much harm as possible, would you design your viruses for the widely used WinXP or for the deprecated Win95?
|
As a virus-maker you 'attack' whatever you want, but because XP is flawed it is easy to do so.
quote:
Anyway, the security of a system mostly depends on the enduser, not on the OS. Stability of an OS is first and foremost determined by things like memory management, driver management, general quality of the code, etc. In this sense XP is by far superior to older OSes: I've used it day-in day-out for almost 2 years now and have never had to reinstall and never had a single BSOD. Back in the days of Win9x, I had to reinstall every few months and got more BSODs that you can shake a stick at... |
The security depending on the end-user????????WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT.
So if you would have a car, you shall not be able to trust your lock? (I know about bikes in the nederlands, that's why I didn't mention them )
For you W95 remark: I never reinstalled my W95 since .......scratch.....scratch........around 1998 might be 99, not sure........and that was because to change the language........but I'll check tonight. And I changed in between HW as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Just check the statistics on the pages of some of the free virus-providers. You see how many users with which operating systems are nonnecting and downloading the latest version. |
So because more poeple are using XP it's less secure? 
quote:
User policy, which is flawed and not really working
built-in firewall, which you can bypass
data-encryption, which anyone but you (user) can bypass.
auto-update.........this is the best joke: You install ~1Gbyte of rubbish to be forced to download another 80+Mgbyte afterwards. That is the best joke, thanks for reminding me...........
Was good for a laugh again |
Just because you don't like these features doesn't mean they don't help improve security. They're better than Win9x, which doesn't have any of them at all!
quote:
As a virus-maker you 'attack' whatever you want, but because XP is flawed it is easy to do so. |
Erm, no. It's like I said above: why bother to write a virus for an OS noone uses anymore?
Writing destructive viruses for WinXP is actually a lot harder than for Win9x/WinME. Example: in older Windows versions most programs/processes are allowed to do and leave what they see fit, including deleting files and reg-entries and changing Windows settings. In WinXP these things are never allowed for most processes. The worst a (popular) virus has so far been able to do on a WinXP system is reboot it (but even then the user has 30 seconds to abort the shutdown -- this is the Blaster virus I'm talking about), and this is only due to a leak that Microsoft fixed ages ago. The only reason why the virus is so wide-spread is because people are too damn stupid to do either 1) use auto-update or 2) run a firewall (note that any sensible person should do both). But had the Blaster virus been written for Win9x, it could have been a mangitude more destructive.
I've worked on tech support for almost 3 years and I can assure you that you're a LOT better off on WinXP than on any other consumer version of Windows, whether it's for security or stablity or almost antyhing else (the only downside seems to be backwards-compatibility, though usually this seems to be more a case of crappy hardware than the OS itself).
quote:
The security depending on the end-user????????WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT.
So if you would have a car, you shall not be able to trust your lock? (I know about bikes in the nederlands, that's why I didn't mention them ) |
If you want to compare with cars, it's not a matter of whether or not you can trust your lock, it's a matter of whether or not you lock your car at all. Or worse yet, whether or not you just leave the doors wide open and the key in the ignition, which is what a LOT of Windows users (Win9x and WinXP alike, but because more people use WinXP it's a bigger problem there) are doing with their PCs.
quote:
For you W95 remark: I never reinstalled my W95 since .......scratch.....scratch........around 1998 might be 99, not sure........and that was because to change the language........but I'll check tonight. And I changed in between HW as well. |
And it runs just as fast as the first day you installed it? Then you must have a very unique system setup, as I don't know anyone who can keep their Win95 system stable for more than a year to year-and-a-half (that with continuous tweaking and optimizing and while installing very little software).
Last edited by Locutus on 22-04-2004 at 19:04
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
So because more poeple are using XP it's less secure?
|
Just realised: slight spelling mistake: nonnecting= connecting nut actually meant connected. And no, it just tells you who needs it, just windoofs.
quote:
Just because you don't like these features doesn't mean they don't help improve security. They're better than Win9x, which doesn't have any of them at all!
|
Where did I say I don't like them :scratch: 
And Yes W95 doesn't have them. But there was no Bill Gates promising: This is the safest Windows existing.
quote:
Erm, no. It's like I said above: why bother to write a virus for an OS noone uses anymore?
|
Mood point, that is not the issue here
quote:
Writing destructive viruses for WinXP is actually a lot harder than for Win9x/WinME. Example: in older Windows versions most programs/processes are allowed to do and leave what they see fit, including deleting files and reg-entries and changing Windows settings. In WinXP these things are never allowed for most processes. The worst a (popular) virus has so far been able to do on a WinXP system is reboot it (but even then the user has 30 seconds to abort the shutdown -- this is the Blaster virus I'm talking about), and this is only due to a leak that Microsoft fixed ages ago. The only reason why the virus is so wide-spread is because people are too damn stupid to do either 1) use auto-update or 2) run a firewall (note that any sensible person should do both). But had the Blaster virus been written for Win9x, it could have been a mangitude more destructive.
|
see above
And I think you need to read a little bit about the updates of Microsoft, you can actually search yourself on the microsoft-webpage, just look for critical warnings, will give you a shitload of them.............most of them discovered before being 'used' by hackers.
And your point with firewall/auto-update:
Where is the logic? Do you bring your car every week to the garage to update the engine?
quote:
If you want to compare with cars, it's not a matter of whether or not you can trust your lock, it's a matter of whether or not you lock your car at all. Or worse yet, whether or not you just leave the doors wide open and the key in the ignition, which is what a LOT of Windows users (Win9x and WinXP alike, but because more people use WinXP it's a bigger problem there) are doing with their PCs.
|
Sorry, wrong match. Leaving the keys in or doors open would be like giving your passwords away and that's not was is happening. Outside users can vith trojan horses read out data, because of design flaws of SM. So how can you compare it with leaving doors open?
To install a firewall/viruschecker would be like adding a lock onto the steering or similar, but the BASIC's need to be there before.
quote:
And it runs just as fast as the first day you installed it? Then you must have a very unique system setup, as I don't know anyone who can keep their Win95 system stable for more than a year to year-and-a-half (that with continuous tweaking and optimizing and while installing very little software). |
I do still install/de-install quite a bit, but haven't got so many problems. I bought Norten Utilities quite a while ago, which checks for me, like the registry and similar. I still have to (sometimes) delete invalid entries, but not so often. But this is (again) just bad implementation of Windoofs and the SW-producer.
Plus boot-up and shutdown is far quicker than on a 4 times quicker PC at work. (W95 to W2000), XP at our slowest machine at work (P450) takes aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by J Bytheway
I jumped straight from Win95 to WinXP. I had to reinstall 95 once or twice in about 6 years, and I've had to reinstall XP once and use the repair function on the installation CD twice in 2 years.
That might sound like Win95 is better, but I think I've pushed XP a lot harder than I ever did 95, and overall I prefer XP. At least XP has the repair function, which works very well, and it certainly seems to be more stable (I've managed to extract several BSOD crashes from it, but certainly nothing like the frequency I used to have - I'm actually surprised when I see them these days, whereas it used to be the norm). The only major objection I have to it is that it can't run old game's sound properly, and I dual-boot Win98 for that .
|
Actually one point (IMPORTANT) people forget: W95 had to support 8 bit and 16 bit programs, so it was a complete change. Can you say the same about XP? No XP has been developed in a time with already 16 bit working (and 8 bit as well, or better to say supposingly) 32 more or less stable (NT). And then you get junk like this? This is a gisgrace. Think of it this way: After the  5ht (or more official) attempt they still screw you.........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Windows update is of course an interesting thing. Most users over here don't even know of that and never update Windows, so they get hit regularly by those worms and such, but they are the ones to blame, damnit! |
Again: Why do you need to update something what shall be working straight away? I am not talking about drivers, but downloading something like 100 Mbyte?????????? That is the size of a complete W95 installation? That is ridicilous..........
And again compared with a car:
You buy a car to have it updated every week? You buy and it shall run and not having loopwholes everywhere........
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
I will also support Locutus that Windows XP are superior than the older operating systems that replaced but it does have its problems. I've used Windows 95, 98/98SE, 2000 Pro and XP Pro successively for the past 7 years and every time I did an upgrade I had a better and more stable system. I do remember the frequent illegal operations and blue screens in the old 9x systems while with 2000 and XP I got rid of the them and rarely had blue screens caused exclusively by bad written device drivers. Not that I didn't have problems at all.
I must tell you that I've always been using a lot of programs and pushing my system to its limits pretty often. There is where the strenght of an operating system is really shown. If you do a minimal use of your operating system then you will have no problem with any operating system you use, whether it is an old Windows 95 or a brand new Windows Server 2003. Try to install 50-60 programs, from small utilities to large suites of programs like Office 2003 Professional, have a 12-24 hours of continual usage every day for months and many programs running on the same time on an old computer with Windows 95 and let me know if it will have stability problems or not.
On the security issue it is well known that viruses and hijacks increase from year to year and have nothing to do with the operating system rather with the increase of computer users thus virus writers and crackers/hackers. Security is almost exclusively a matter of the user. A well informed and experienced user will always use a good anti-virus and firewall if connected to the Internet, and do frequent updates to those programs. They will also do frequent updates to their operating systems. Vulnerabilities are usually discovered before they are used to do harm so keeping your operating system up to date will keep out of troubles in most cases. Since most of these vulnerabilities have to do with buffer overflaws, AMD and Intel are planning to release processors that will prevent buffer overflaws in hardware level (I think AMD has already do this with the Athlon 64 FX-53). Also (I think) the next service pack for the Windows XP will give protection from buffer overflaws.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
To add to the security issue, the experienced user will never run a program he/she downloaded from the Internet before he/she scans it with an antivirus program nor will open executeble files attached in an email unless they expecting such an attachment.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2004 15:06
I havent had one BSOD on XPpro at home ever though.
|