PDA

View Full Version : Why Windows XP sucks.


Yotabyte
Nov 18, 2004, 10:41 AM
Norton antivirus found 4 viruses on my PC today and was only able to fix 2. It's amazing what actually manages to slip through my blackice firewall and norton auto-protect-itself and onto my system and then dig in like a tick before Norton can tell me how screwed I am. All I have to say is dam you, Bill Gates and damn you Chin Ing-Hau!

varmit
Nov 18, 2004, 11:05 AM
Try being the Network Administrator for a company that has a boss that just wont switch to anything but MS. We have gone to weekly virus, and spyware checks on the clients by the users, and they have to email me their troubles or what viruses were found. Lovely.

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 11:08 AM
I don't understand why Apple doesn't have a whole marketing campaign about this.

You just need a windows user saying: "I split my computer time between three important tasks: fighting viruses, fighting spyware, and fighting spam. On the rare instances that I'm not doing one of those, I spend the rest of my time fighting the stupid Windows operating system."

--
http://www.wanderingphilosopher.com/

jeremy.king
Nov 18, 2004, 11:25 AM
While a true assessment of Windows' vulnerabilities, you have to take on some level of responsibility. These viruses don't just automatically appear for no reason.

You need to keep your system up-to-date with service packs and be responsible with opening of email attachments. Even further, you shouldn't use the preview window in Outlook (if possible, don't use Outlook or OE at all) and you should disable opening of HTML based emails. You should double check your virus scanning settings. Does it scan all incoming emails? Are you sure? Most of today's viruses spread using known (and patched) exploits.

I agree that Microsoft is partly to blame with all the holes left in their software programs, but if you are going to be a Windows user, you need to know how to change your ways. Running a virus scanner and firewall doesn't make any system invincible. It sort of like blaming a car manufacturer for your dead car at 80,000 miles when you don't do any preventative maintenance.

For kicks, I am curious which 4 viruses turned up on your system? A quick lookup on your favorite virus defs website will show how you transmitted it and where you are lacking protection.

With all that said, I am still a happy Mac user :D

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 11:32 AM
You need to keep your system up-to-date with service packs and be responsible with opening of email attachments.
Running the Windows update utility does not keep your system completely up to date. Running most virus programs' update utilities does not necessarily keep one's virus defs totally up to date.

In both cases, to truly get all the updates, you have to run through several horrendous extra processes, often hacking URLs and other fun stuff to get the right files. In Windows, there's a whole application (separate from the update util) for auditing one's update level, and applying special patches.

It's a friggin' nightmare over there on the dark side. Any user who can keep their system and virus util 100% up to date must be a complete nerd who works on nothing else all day.

And even so... having all the updates only keeps you protected from known viruses. New ones can still find their way in. And god help you if you accidentally click the wrong button when you get a virus/spyware/etc. warning. A friend (who is total Windows expert) spent two days trying to remove one spyware app after such an incident. I think he ended up reformatting his drive and starting over from scratch.

jeremy.king
Nov 18, 2004, 11:46 AM
And god help you if you accidentally click the wrong button when you get a virus/spyware/etc. warning.

And this is Microsoft's fault?

My point was everyone is quick to blame to MS or Norton, etc... and in most cases those same people who think they have locked down their computer - haven't in reality.

Where is that article???

Found it. http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041025/255460_1.html

edesignuk
Nov 18, 2004, 12:08 PM
Any user who can keep their system and virus util 100% up to date must be a complete nerd who works on nothing else all day.

I have no viruses, and no ad/spy/mal-ware. Why? I use Firefox, install my windows updates, and run NAV Corp. It's not rocket science.

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 01:22 PM
I have no viruses, and no ad/spy/mal-ware. Why? I use Firefox, install my windows updates, and run NAV Corp. It's not rocket science.
I'll bet that according to NAV Corporate and Windows Update, you are 100% up to date.

I'll also bet that neither is actually up to date.

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 01:25 PM
And this is Microsoft's fault?
One-click, passwordless install of severe system-compromising software? Yes, that's Microsoft's fault. They could at least ask for a password after confirming that you want to install spyware on your computer.

jeremy.king
Nov 18, 2004, 01:43 PM
One-click, passwordless install of severe system-compromising software? Yes, that's Microsoft's fault. They could at least ask for a password after confirming that you want to install spyware on your computer.

Wow :rolleyes: You can't be serious? Reread your statement. So the confirmation isn't enough now when installing software. What do you think a CONFIRMATION is?

If you really want, setup so your everday account such that you can't install software, and when you have to - login as an admin and install away.

Everyone to blame except themselves... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Josh
Nov 18, 2004, 01:50 PM
Try being the Network Administrator for a company that has a boss that just wont switch to anything but MS. We have gone to weekly virus, and spyware checks on the clients by the users, and they have to email me their troubles or what viruses were found. Lovely.


hehe...our win2k systems are scanned daily at noon.

And since we are connected to an always-on network, its like an open road for spyware/virii/etc.

Pretty much the computers here are barely usable. That is, unless numerous popups dont annoy you.

edesignuk
Nov 18, 2004, 01:52 PM
I'll bet that according to NAV Corporate and Windows Update, you are 100% up to date.

I'll also bet that neither is actually up to date.
Whatever you think, there is no arguing that I have no problems what so ever.

...still love my iMac though :D

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 01:53 PM
Wow :rolleyes: You can't be serious? Reread your statement. So the confirmation isn't enough now when installing software. What do you think a CONFIRMATION is?
Macs ask for confirmation... then ask for a password. ;)

When clicking "OK" might result in destruction of all your data, irreperable damage of system resources, completely compromising your privacy, and/or a flood of spam spewing out of your computer... yes, I think more than one confirmation might be worthwhile.

Asking for a password before installing is just a no-brainer. It ensures that the person sitting in front of the computer right now knows the admin password, and it warns you that an installation is about to take place (which a spyware-generated dialog might not necessarily indicate).

As for it never being the users' fault... what does Microsoft think its users are? Unix geeks? The vast majority of Windows users think their monitor is their computer, and their computer is their hard drive.

BornAgainMac
Nov 18, 2004, 02:01 PM
It takes too long to startup after you get past the initial login screen. Installing and uninstalling programs is slow. People tend to place an icon of every program they ever run on the desktop because running programs from the Start menu is a pain. It makes it a confusing mess. The dock is a better solution. Control panel icons are inconsistent with the Administration icons.
The online help isn't very helpful. The control panel isn't as organized as the System Preferences on the Mac. Random problems for the life of your machine. It reminds me of just another Linux distribution than a really successful and commerical O/S from a company the size of Microsoft.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 18, 2004, 02:13 PM
My biggest beef with Windows XP is the horrid networking. Often, Windows takes about 2 minutes after starting up before it'll see my iMac and connect to it. Also, I have to log out and back in or even restart Windows because it refuses to connect.

As far as Mac OS X goes...selecting text in Safari is extremely unpredictable if done in anything other than a text box. The selection seemingly jumps around and won't go where I want it to go. It's difficult to tell what will be selected if I click and drag over some text on a web site, especially if images are mixed in with the text.

jeremy.king
Nov 18, 2004, 02:19 PM
As for it never being the users' fault... what does Microsoft think its users are? Unix geeks? The vast majority of Windows users think their monitor is their computer, and their computer is their hard drive.

I guess our philosophies differ, that's the beauty of being human. ;)

I just don't automatically blame a company becuase I had no idea what I was doing. Like confirming that you would like to install spyware. You believe that they should ask you more than once, sort of like the Verizon guy but instead of "Can you hear me now" you get "Are you still sure you want to install?"

My feelings are you can't hold the company (MS in this case) entirely liable for spyware and viruses. Granted they're OS is porous, but its not that bad if you know how to use it and protect yourself. Crap I have to use it everyday and I can't say it's ruined my life - most likely because I come home to my happy mac :)

Think of an auto maker, they safely assume that anyone who is going to operate one of their vehicles knows how to. Imagine if every 8 year old who throws a running car into drive and runs through the back of the garage was able to blame GM/Chrysler/etc that it is the manufacturers fault for not confirming that you know what you are doing before putting a car into drive. Why must a software company be 100% liable for something the user did? Would you hold Apple *GASP* responsible once viruses and spyware creep into the picture? Seems bass ackwards to me.

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 03:53 PM
Whatever you think, there is no arguing that I have no problems what so ever.
Then you're lucky.

Unless you run Security Analyzer (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/Security/tools/default.mspx), you aren't really secure according to Microsoft. And that is one F-U-N tool to use!

Also, sometimes NAV/Windows will download the "latest" update; yet there are several more, more recent updates on the NAV website. Go figure.

edesignuk
Nov 18, 2004, 03:57 PM
Then you're lucky.
Lucky? Or maybe just cautious enough not to open attachments from people I don't know, not to say yes to anything, and to not install various shareware/freeware all the time.

patrick0brien
Nov 18, 2004, 04:00 PM
...It's not rocket science.

-edesignuk

To you and we perhaps, but there's something called the 80/20 rule.

No matter how hard you scream, how well you articulate, how many times you manipulated their very own hand, and despite your extremely best efforts to the point of a level of exhaustion so deep your great-great-great-grandkids will be winded - 20% of the informed will still have the blinking clock on their VCR's.

What really saddens me, is that few are informed.

For this reason, and making screwing up so damn easy, and maintenance an actual chore despite knowing that I have to and how to - I personally blame MS.

edesignuk
Nov 18, 2004, 04:05 PM
- patrick0brien ;)

Absolutely agree. Most people can't seem to grasp simple things to keep your computer free of all the crap that is out there, no matter how many times they are told how.

I think that MS and these users should hold an equal share of the blame, MS should tighten things up, and users should make as much effort to learn how to secure their machine as they do bugger around with formulas in excel :rolleyes:

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 04:08 PM
Think of an auto maker, they safely assume that anyone who is going to operate one of their vehicles knows how to. Imagine if every 8 year old who throws a running car into drive and runs through the back of the garage was able to blame GM/Chrysler/etc that it is the manufacturers fault for not confirming that you know what you are doing before putting a car into drive. Why must a software company be 100% liable for something the user did? Would you hold Apple *GASP* responsible once viruses and spyware creep into the picture? Seems bass ackwards to me.
I think for that analogy to hold, the car manufacturer would have to put a big sign on the side of the car saying: "Kids! try driving this in the garage! It's easy!" And then they'd put blocks on the gas pedal to make it easier for kids to reach. And they'd set the transmission to lurch the car forward five feet on ignition. And they'd replace the key-ignition with a big button saying "Kids, press here!"

Timelessblur
Nov 18, 2004, 04:10 PM
Any user who can keep their system and virus util 100% up to date must be a complete nerd who works on nothing else all day.


Dude it is easy to keep a windows computer 100% to date with in 24 hours of an update being released. My XP computer is on the next 24/7 100% uptoday and virus and spyware free (minus a few cookies which dont count any ways since all computer including your so high and mightly macs get those). The family computer as home is 100% upto date and virus free. It is not spyware free since I have not been home ot run adware on it.

Default setting on XP SP2 computer automaticly download updates and installs them. Nortain defeult setting is to check for updates every 5 mins (I change it to onces ever 24 hours.

Switching off IE prevents all automaticly installing spyware. It is not microsoft fault that people are idoits and click and tell the computer it is ok to install a lot of stuff that is bloated with spyware

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 04:15 PM
Dude it is easy to keep a windows computer 100% to date with in 24 hours of an update being released.
See above... MS software update and NAV update DO NOT give you all the latest updates. They just make you think you have them. Nice, eh?

Also, 24 hours is an awfully long time. I had a friend deploy a MS-based web server, with a complete lock-down on all security holes and totally updated virus defs (he is a MS security expert). As he deployed the server, a new virus came out and immediately infected it. It took down his entire ISP for a couple hours, and his server for a couple of days.

Timelessblur
Nov 18, 2004, 04:21 PM
hmmm looks like we have a Mac zelot who refuses to believe that it the user fault. For a HOME computer 24 hours is not a very long time. a week is starting to push it. That being said you acting like Apple is perfic. I think Zelots are worse than the trolls. most of the time trolls at least know somewhatly what they are talking about Zelots well they are idoits who know noughting

iLikeMyiMac
Nov 18, 2004, 04:22 PM
I think that the main problem with XP is that the average computer user doesn't know how to use their computer.
My old XP computer didn't have a problem with spyware or adware but that was because I knew how to take care of it.

I found this screenshot from the New Posts page a little funny.

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 04:25 PM
Timelessblur, I have plenty of problems with Apple. But I thank anything that'll listen every day that I don't have to use Windows. I personally know several people who are intelligent and cautious, who have had Windows totally screw them over.

I've seen both Mac and Windows users screw themselves over, but with Windows, there are simply far, far, far, far more opportunities to screw up and/or for the OS to screw something up for you.

efoto
Nov 18, 2004, 04:26 PM
Agree with all of the above who say it is not that hard to keep your computer safe and sound, and it does not take a *complete dweeb* or whatever was said to do it.

First off, don't start with a computer that comes with shi* on it *cough Dell cough* or like systems. Now I will concede that building your own computer takes a certain level of dweebyness, but the chicks dig that right :p. I personally always use XP Pro and then just change a few things over in the registry and a few other various places to close up a few open doors. Its not a perfect OS by any means, and I have no doubt that OSX is better (although I lack broad experience with it) but a lot of the issues PC users have are just that, pc USER issues. PCs have more problems because more people use them, so duh, put an idiot on a Mac and I am sure he can screw it up somehow (I plan too once I purchase my first sometime soon :D).

Ante up and take a little blame here. Like e said earlier, don't open crazed attachments from address you don't know, don't give in to "xxxx, you've one 1 million dollars, just click her and take this survey and thats it!".
Sure...you wanna win a million, go for it but don't bi**h that it was your PC's fault.

The not-so-rocketscience e mentioned above is just that, not-so-rocketsciency. If you find things difficult I am sure people would be willing to help but its not inherently the PCs fault. NAV Cp, SpyBot, AdAware...um I think that is all I use and I have been virus free for...evar. No crazy programs in the Task manager, etc. It doesn't take too long to figure out what is what and close what you don't want/use.

rueyeet
Nov 18, 2004, 04:27 PM
I just don't automatically blame a company becuase I had no idea what I was doing.....Granted they're OS is porous, but its not that bad if you know how to use it and protect yourself. The problem, though, is that it takes so much more computer knowledge than most of Microsoft's users HAVE to properly use it and protect themselves. I'm not talking about you and me, here, I'm talking about the overwhelming percentage who don't know that IE is only one of many programs called "web browsers" and don't know the difference between memory and the hard drive. The ones who don't understand, and whose eyes glaze over if you try and explain it to them, exactly WHY not being able to turn off HTML in Outlook's preview pane is a bad thing. (And not having that simple option to increase the security of one's email, and instead having to alter how you use a program that is many people's daily bread and butter, is NOT Microsoft's fault?)

Add to that, that it's necessary to use a plethora of third-party programs to plug the holes that Microsoft has left: anti-virus, firewall, spyware blocker, adware blocker, pop-up blocker. How many people understand that EACH of those is necessary if you're going to use IE and Outlook on a Windows system, and understand that each one compensates for a DIFFERENT security problem? Less than you'd think, and even the few that do might not bother with them if they aren't free.

Why exactly does all of this onus have to fall on the user, especially when the user is probably not up to the task of doing it properly? And that 80-to-20 ratio, guess which number is more representative of the users that aren't? The problem isn't so much that the users have failed to properly administer their systems, as that Microsoft has left Windows so full of so many holes, that maintenance of a proper Windows installation is so complicated as to be literally out of the reach of the overwhelming percentage of computer users.

And how, exactly, is that NOT at least a little bit Microsoft's fault?

edesignuk, by your mention of NAV Corp. I take it that at least some of the admin tasks are being handled by your company; and your posts here show that you're fairly computer savvy. Those are two advantages that the vast majority of the computer-using public doesn't have. I've recommended non-IE web browsers to more than one person, only to have them ask what a brower is. I'm not kidding.

And efoto: If you can build your own systems and actually edit the Windows registry, chances are you could never understand the stunning lack of understanding that I'm trying to convey here in regards to most people and their computers.

jeremy.king
Nov 18, 2004, 04:27 PM
See above... MS software update and NAV update DO NOT give you all the latest updates. They just make you think you have them. Nice, eh?

Curious why you keep repeating this? Do you really have proof this is true, or are you just yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?

Even more curious is how is my system is up to date after checking both the Norton and Windows Update websites, when I only run LiveUpdate and let SP2 auto d/l and install patches???

Timelessblur
Nov 18, 2004, 04:35 PM
Timelessblur, I have plenty of problems with Apple. But I thank anything that'll listen every day that I don't have to use Windows. I personally know several people who are intelligent and cautious, who have had Windows totally screw them over.

I've seen both Mac and Windows users screw themselves over, but with Windows, there are simply far, far, far, far more opportunities to screw up and/or for the OS to screw something up for you.

Being intelligent and cautions and knowing how to computer are 2 very diffent things.

I have a few good friends who are intelligent and cautious but knowing how to keep there computer clean and working no they dont. It only works so far. it take some windows knowledge to keep a computer clean. My computer is extermly clean of spyware and virus. Uptodate and I know how to automatic a lot of maintaice so I dont have to speend hours a day keeping it that way.

I dont think you so call friends really know that much about windows XP since the people who do understand it dont really put up with that much and problems with the OS simple because we know how to use it

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 04:42 PM
Curious why you keep repeating this? Do you really have proof this is true, or are you just yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?
I know from direct experience. Sometimes the updaters do not download the latest update. I've also seen this mentioned in Windows discussion forums.

But whatever... go ahead and use Windows. I don't care. But on that day when everything on your computer goes poof... don't say I didn't warn you.

You can say that won't happen... just like the MCSE's I know who said that about their machines... before it happened to them.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 18, 2004, 04:45 PM
I know from direct experience. Sometimes the updaters do not download the latest update. I've also seen this mentioned in Windows discussion forums.

But whatever... go ahead and use Windows. I don't care. But on that day when everything on your computer goes poof... don't say I didn't warn you.

You can say that won't happen... just like the MCSE's I know who said that about their machines... before it happened to them.
Well, at least I don't need to worry, since my Windows machine has no internet connection. I've been told that keeping a Windows machine offline permanently - especially an unprotected one - is the safest thing to do.

Toe
Nov 18, 2004, 04:46 PM
I dont think you so call friends really know that much about windows XP since the people who do understand it dont really put up with that much and problems with the OS simple because we know how to use it
Off-hand, I can think of two MCSEs and three people I'd consider computer savvy (they program in various languages, set up offices, stuff like that), who have been absolutely screwed by flaws in Windows. Usually on their personal computer which they go to great pains to protect.

As others have stated... most people who use computers are not computer whizes. Yet those who use Macs do not have to worry about all that virus, spyware, malware, defective-software, etc. crap and Windows users do. Period.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 18, 2004, 04:50 PM
Off-hand, I can think of two MCSEs and three people I'd consider computer savvy (they program in various languages, set up offices, stuff like that), who have been absolutely screwed by flaws in Windows. Usually on their personal computer which they go to great pains to protect.

As others have stated... most people who use computers are not computer whizes. Yet those who use Macs do not have to worry about all that virus, spyware, malware, defective-software, etc. crap and Windows users do. Period.
What about me, Toe? I have both a Mac and a Windows machine...but the Windows machine is permanently disconnected from the Internet. If I want to send something to my Windows machine, I just go online with my Mac, grab the file(s), then use Windows sharing to send them over. The Mac connects with AirPort wireless, and an Ethernet cable connects the Mac and PC. Internet connection sharing on the Mac is turned off.

Timelessblur
Nov 18, 2004, 05:14 PM
Off-hand, I can think of two MCSEs and three people I'd consider computer savvy (they program in various languages, set up offices, stuff like that), who have been absolutely screwed by flaws in Windows. Usually on their personal computer which they go to great pains to protect.

As others have stated... most people who use computers are not computer whizes. Yet those who use Macs do not have to worry about all that virus, spyware, malware, defective-software, etc. crap and Windows users do. Period.

again I repeat my statement. One of my best friends he can program like no one buniness but when it came to keep the comptuer clean he had a lot of problems. I showed him a free tricks mind you it was easy for him to pick up since he understand computers. Some how I dont buy you example. 95% of the problems i run to on windows is pretty much my own fault because I know what part of the OS I was messing around in and I know messing aroundi nthose areas can cause problems

Oh and lastly we got the point you are a Zelot who really dont know any real facts. Zelot are the worse to put up with

Pixeled_Apple
Nov 18, 2004, 06:01 PM
Frankly, I hate xp, my friends agree; e"xp"erience the best is now the oppisite, coz there are more better OSes , and Mac OS X will show where window$ goes. Its the most contimated OS in the Digital World. Viruses, Spyware, Malware... you name it, is MOSTLY on Windoze. Mac OS, UNIX, Linux might not be immune to sercurity threats (BeOS might :p ) but its certainly doesn't have that many. I read in the Front Page or somewhere that 60 viruses target mac, but 60,000 target $ windoze $ .

Many mission-critical stuff, use UNIX, Solaris, Sun Microsystems (as they computer) there can't be stuck with Windows errors saying "Windows has encounted a error, Sorry for the inconvience" "Windows is like for people who are new to computers and want basic functions, but people who want learn in-depth in Information Technology use Mac OS or something else than windows." Thats what I think.

jackieonasses
Nov 18, 2004, 06:21 PM
Many mission-critical stuff, use UNIX, Solaris, Sun Microsystems (as they computer) there can't be stuck with Windows errors saying "Windows has encounted a error, Sorry for the inconvience" "Windows is like for people who are new to computers and want basic functions, but people who want learn in-depth in Information Technology use Mac OS or something else than windows." Thats what I think. Why did you keep using quotations? Did you get that from somewhere else?



{edit} i will just voice my opinion, In all actuality, Windows is NOT that bad. There are holes, but ultimatly it is up to the user. Some people here say that you have to be an idiot to use windows, which is ridiculous. Just be safe, Keep it offline (i like windows in that case) or just buy a mac. But soon enough Macs will have virii also. Once there 7% - or so - market share gets larger, the virii gap will close. Sure,there will never be as many (due to the Unix nature) but still enough.

patrick0brien
Nov 18, 2004, 06:34 PM
hmmm looks like we have a Mac zelot who refuses to believe that it the user fault. For a HOME computer 24 hours is not a very long time. a week is starting to push it. That being said you acting like Apple is perfic. I think Zelots are worse than the trolls. most of the time trolls at least know somewhatly what they are talking about Zelots well they are idoits who know noughting

-Timelessblur

Perhaps, but then that's a difficult accusation to make without labeling yourself. We're all pretty smart guys here - clearly we have enough time to read and post - we can come to our own conclusions.

And be careful with those accusations, it's not very constructive. By using the incredubly strong language of someone 'not having facts' and not backing it up with examples, is in itself, silly. I'd suggest not even going there.

There is a nit I feel I need to pic with your conclusion however. This subject is not entirely the fault of the user nor MS, so placing complete blame is not possible. However the responsibility does reside somewhere...

Yotabyte
Nov 18, 2004, 11:14 PM
While a true assessment of Windows' vulnerabilities, you have to take on some level of responsibility. These viruses don't just automatically appear for no reason.

You need to keep your system up-to-date with service packs and be responsible with opening of email attachments. Even further, you shouldn't use the preview window in Outlook (if possible, don't use Outlook or OE at all) and you should disable opening of HTML based emails. You should double check your virus scanning settings. Does it scan all incoming emails? Are you sure? Most of today's viruses spread using known (and patched) exploits.

I agree that Microsoft is partly to blame with all the holes left in their software programs, but if you are going to be a Windows user, you need to know how to change your ways. Running a virus scanner and firewall doesn't make any system invincible. It sort of like blaming a car manufacturer for your dead car at 80,000 miles when you don't do any preventative maintenance.

For kicks, I am curious which 4 viruses turned up on your system? A quick lookup on your favorite virus defs website will show how you transmitted it and where you are lacking protection.

With all that said, I am still a happy Mac user :D

I'l tell you the story. Well, I really don't use this computer that much any more as I have my other PC desktop at another house that I use frequently and I pretty much keep that one secure and it's never really had a virus problem. This one on the other hand, does, and only has started like this yesterday. Norton detected a virus, but then could't remove it and so kept spamming me with the virus detected window. Joy I thought, I will just do a system scan now. In the process it found some more, viruses on windows are like XP service packs generally they actually improve performance so that is why they went un-noticed, unless they all came in at the same time. One of them was not a virus it was a trojan, I forgot the name. It had a keylogger, slowed down my typing to baby-crawl, and even had an RPC exploit (either that or one of the other... infections did) which I thought was fixed in SP1! Apparently not. So I did the usual DOS command to stop the shutdown occuring, and re-started PC in safe mode and did a full system scan. This allegedly did it, but I am still getting the occasional norton warning about viruses on the system.

If this continues, I will probably just format and reinstall windows. i've got a Knoppix CD here incase the PC becomes totally unuseable and a nice copy of Mandrake 10 here if I really get teed off at old Windows.

Bah.

Yotabyte
Nov 18, 2004, 11:37 PM
Okay, now that i've read a bit more of the topic I will make another reply!

I blame Microsoft as it's fun. Of course Windows is targeted, still most of the computers on this planet that are connected by the net or otherwise to each other are windows and as a result virus coders are hitting the most people at one time. If it was reversed, apple was the world's largest provider of computer software, we'd see about the same amount of viruses written for apple. I think it's good that Microsoft is the target for all of these viruses, trojans, worms, spyware etc, it means that the Mac users use Windows as a sacrificial anode, its a method of Mac virus protection!

Now I shall continue. I've never on the computer (PC) that I use for most of my day to day work have ever gotten a virus on it. Others have for me, but never me. I never open an email attachment unless I requested it, regardless of who it is from. I run Ad-aware and Spybot S&D often (mainly adaware) and that takes care of MOST of my spyware problems (I had a problem receintly with some really HK spyware, and actually got the removal software from their own website as Ad-aware, Spybot, and a few others that I tried out of desperation, plus my bltizkreig in the registry, didn't kill it. But besides that, I keep windows pretty well maintained. I don't patch every security problem, but I do most. I use Norton Utilities to keep windows working at peak efficiency (i recommend this program for any windows user) and I use a hardware firewall (thanks router!) which I keep the firmware updated and the settings pretty tight and it keeps me safe.

Back to emails, the only ones I ever even LOOK at on my comp have been scanned by NAV. On MSN, every attachment I recieve is scanned by NAV. I try my hardest to keep viruses and other forms of spyware and malware off my PC and it works most of the time, but for THIS PC, I don't, and I can see now why people who don't really protect themselves are hit bad. All I have to say is that as long as Microsoft has primacy of the Systems Software in the world, my PC will never be perfectly safe.

angelneo
Nov 19, 2004, 01:58 AM
Oh and lastly we got the point you are a Zelot who really dont know any real facts. Zelot are the worse to put up with

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and we can debate about it back and forth constructively, but I think we shouldn't start calling each other names.

russed
Nov 19, 2004, 03:56 AM
i would like to add something here that i dont think has been added previously.

in my opinion about 70% of the windows users will know nothing more than how to turn the dammed thing on, write a letter, do a bit on the internet and email and nothing else. these are the people that need to be protected and in my opinion microsoft dont do it.

the likes of windows update and things like that will be unknown to most and although people say its easy to keep up to date etc the majority will never use it. an example of this. i live in a house with 4 more people, all who are on windows. they are not thick by any means and they can 'use' a computer but not one of them know anything about anti virus, anti-spyware, windows update etc. i bet if they did even put antivirus on, they would just think they were protected. i had to take in on myself to get them uptodate (someone was even on pre sp1 xp!) put htem on to firefox, thunderbird, get them on av, anti spyware etc.

the point is here. yes it is pretty simple to keep a windows box relatively free from virii etc but this is still beyond most either because they dont care, dont know, are unable to do or dont want the hassle. you should be free to do what you want on your computer, but if you do this on xp, you will prob end up with a box that will be running at snails pace within a month and riddle is spyware and virii. so in this case, xp falls a long way short of a good os.

dual64bit
Nov 19, 2004, 11:22 AM
Windows XP sucks because...

Service pack 2 completely screws over SysPrep and any other native built-in windows imaging tools. I've never seen such a mess of a product.

My friend has the 14day trial developmental release of longhorn. Talk about a joke, nothing is 64bit, the file structure is the same. Has microsoft gone off the deep end?

kainjow
Nov 19, 2004, 12:27 PM
The main that I think that makes Windows suck is its attempts to be backward compatible. This means Microsoft isn't using the latest and great code, and is relying on old, buggy code.

Also, it doesn't take a lot to keep Windows virus and spyware free. Just use Firefox instead of IE, block your pop ups, read your messages boxes and don't OK everything you see, run virus protection frequently, and use firewalls when possible.

If you have a virus or spyware that you can't remove or your apps can't remove, but you know where it is, simply boot into Safe Mode and delete it from there, once you give yourself permission to do so.

My friend's PC was really screwed over for a while, but my other friend and I simply ran a few utilties, and did some Safe Mode booting to get rid of protected files, and it's all good now. We didn't need to reinstall Windows or anything like that, which most people do because they think it's the only way to clean it.

The facts are, Windows takes more time to keep clean, while the Mac takes close to nothing. To safely use a Windows machine, you have to be educated about it, which people don't want to be. To use a Mac, you juse it use, and it's safe (for now).

Makyz
Nov 19, 2004, 02:11 PM
Everyone are a product of their different experiences:

for me my Mac hard drive corrupted 3 times and kernel panics all over the place, I replaced my hard drive and I had few problems since then. I have run into compatibility issues with my university software using Macs, and some accounting software that was simply not available for Macs.

on my windows box, my harddrive never corrupted, and because i kept my system updated and norton running- i never had a problem with virii or spyware. On my pc I can do almost anything without restriction.

Do I hate Macs? No i really like my 12inch powerbook, and my athlon box equally.

And thanks goodness for people who do not know how to work with computers, they keep me employed.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 19, 2004, 02:59 PM
Everyone are a product of their different experiences:

for me my Mac hard drive corrupted 3 times and kernel panics all over the place, I replaced my hard drive and I had few problems since then. I have run into compatibility issues with my university software using Macs, and some accounting software that was simply not available for Macs.

on my windows box, my harddrive never corrupted, and because i kept my system updated and norton running- i never had a problem with virii or spyware. On my pc I can do almost anything without restriction.

Do I hate Macs? No i really like my 12inch powerbook, and my athlon box equally.

And thanks goodness for people who do not know how to work with computers, they keep me employed.
I had the strangest problem with my iMac - it froze up or had a kernel panic randomly every 10 minutes or so. I couldn't even start the Mac from the Mac OS X install CD - I got random kernel panics. I took it into the Apple Store in my area, and the folks at the Genius Bar told me that the cause was corrupted power manager settings. Resetting the Power Management Unit (PMU) and fixing settings that depend on it, such as the system date and time, solved the problem. It hasn't crashed since - and that was in early February 2004.

Now as far as my PC goes:

There are times when I need Windows to do something I can't accomplish on the Mac; however, Windows has a habit of getting in the way when you want to get something done. For example, I once tried to send a group of files from my PC to my Mac, but the transfer failed, and Windows told me "the path is too deep". Us users shouldn't have to worry about such things as how deep a directory in my user space is in the directory tree - Windows should just copy the file(s) regardless of path length (and increase the path limit to 65,536 characters so this problem won't recur).

Yotabyte
Nov 21, 2004, 04:30 AM
Ah well, it's formatting season!
http://rsc.cflmain.com/screenshots/nav.JPG
Nice to know that Norton, infact, thinks the system is okay when I get a constantly spamming Virus alert. (btw, it's not W32.Dumaru.AI, it's similar to it though, tricky little bastard.)

I've done full systems scans with Norton twice (once in safe mode) then I did the same with an online scanner, then I updated my firewall as some component of this virus is now trying to infect other windows computers (random addresses, thanks netstat)

So yes, it all sucks. Nice to know that none of the major anti-virus programs can find it, tis a smart white whale. Old Ahab has to go back to huntin' now.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 21, 2004, 07:44 AM
Ah well, it's formatting season!
http://rsc.cflmain.com/screenshots/nav.JPG
Nice to know that Norton, infact, thinks the system is okay when I get a constantly spamming Virus alert. (btw, it's not W32.Dumaru.AI, it's similar to it though, tricky little bastard.)

I've done full systems scans with Norton twice (once in safe mode) then I did the same with an online scanner, then I updated my firewall as some component of this virus is now trying to infect other windows computers (random addresses, thanks netstat)

So yes, it all sucks. Nice to know that none of the major anti-virus programs can find it, tis a smart white whale. Old Ahab has to go back to huntin' now.
Actually, Norton's status monitors don't tie in to the virus scanning engine at all, so it's quite possible that everything could be set up correctly (thus Norton reporting an OK status) and yet a full scan reveals that you are infected (explaining the dialog above). All the status monitors do is check to make sure that full system scans and updates happen on a schedule and that these things are enabled. For some strange reason, the status monitor isn't tied to Auto-Protect, which should have spotted this virus when it entered your system.

angelneo
Nov 21, 2004, 08:06 AM
There was once when I got infected a couple of viruses that disabled my norton anti-virus. It even blocked all the popular anti-virus website to route it to localhost. It was so damm frustrating to remove these viruses when they attempt to remove all your capabilities to seek help. You do not even have to do anything except to go online and you would be vulnerable to virus attack. A firewall and anti-virus is now a must for all XP installation.

VincentVega
Nov 21, 2004, 08:48 AM
I've been using XP since it came out in 2001 (?) and I've had... no viruses. No spyware. No BSODs since I built my current box back in May 2002.

How so? Let's see...

1. My computer is permanently connected to the Internet, but sits behind a router (so other PCs can share the connection), making it invisible from the outside world.
2. I use the Opera browser for all my web surfing, apart from Firefox (for GMail) and Internet Exploder (for Windows Update).
3. I use WebWasher to filter out pop-ups, ads and other junk. This makes Web browsing much nicer. I strongly recommend WW - it works very well with both Opera and Firefox (Download link (http://www.webwasher.com/client/download/private_use/windows/index.html?lang=de_EN)).
4. Symantec Antivirus is running permanently. Fully up-to-date.
5. Running XP SP2, Automatic Updates are turned on, so any critical updates are downloaded and installed for me in the background. I check for non-critical updates and Office 2003 patches regularly and use Microsoft Baseline Security Adviser to check for anything else required (MBSA download link (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsahome.mspx)).
6. I use AdAware to scan for spyware. It picks up cookies and that's about it.
7. I have a number of email addresses. My main one is used for people whom I trust (family, friends) and companies whom I feel have good reputations (Apple, Amazon, etc). I use free ones (GMail, Yahoo) for signing up for forums and for people whom I don't entirely trust not to send me silly pictures in an email.
8. When posting on Usenet, I spoof my email address and use a fake name.
9. I re-install Windows every couple of months, using a Symantec Ghost image I took of a clean post-SP2 installation. I can get all my apps up and running in a few hours.

None of these are particularly difficult to do, nor do they take any time. You just need to be careful. However, as someone mentioned up-thread, most people don't care or are just ignorant of the risks and how to fix their computer. Apple has a huge advantage in this regard: Mac users seem to be more tech-savvy, the computers are built better and so on. Perhaps it also gains through "security through obscurity".

Windows XP is by no means perfect, but to say it "sucks" is going a bit far (certainly after MS released SP2). It has its pros and its cons. Much like any other operating system.

Timelessblur
Nov 21, 2004, 09:35 AM
No I dont think Mac useser are more tech savey people. They general pop is about the same as windows pop. Most them are clueless and dont know what they are doing. Just OSX is a lot more forgiving if you dont do critcal updates (which now by defaulted is automaticly download instaled on windows). a lot more forgiving in lack of antivirus (it is a matter of time before OSX gets some big viruses). Forgiving in not having a firewall (which if you dont have a firewall I still going to say you are an idiot since the main reason to have a firewall is to keep people out and to control what data is sent out from your computer)

edesignuk
Nov 21, 2004, 10:39 AM
9. I re-install Windows every couple of months, using a Symantec Ghost image I took of a clean post-SP2 installation. I can get all my apps up and running in a few hours.As you can see from my previous posts in this thread, I don't think that Windows is terrible...that said...until I read No.9 things were going well, then you completely destroyed any argument you were trying to make.

Yotabyte
Nov 21, 2004, 11:18 AM
Deep down inside I do, infact, love windows (and edesignuk's avatar :p)

Nice protection VincentVega, but I doubt you or any one would be getting many BSOD's in XP. :p I guess I am really too lazy to be punctual with imageing, and formatting, and updating, etc. On the other hand, I neglect this PC's security as downloading updates on a modem is like using a tap to re-fil the pacific ocean. I have norton autoupdate, and that's about it. Took me a good two hours to download an update for my firewall too. So I guess I really don't care much for this comp! Hehe...

Also with that image I posted, the entire reason I posted it was to point out how a company with so much business, and so many funds, and one that has released so many distributions of itself is so vulnerable to viruses itself, (the virus popup keeps popping up, which is I would say the definition of a program exploit!). I also know the status OK thing is not related to current virus counts on the PC, but don't you think it should? A system is not OK in from anti-virus programs perspective if your system is a petri dish filled with mutated viruses as long as the petri dish was cleaned a week before use...

IJ Reilly
Nov 21, 2004, 12:17 PM
My objections to Windows are less technical. IMO, the UI is an utter disaster. It's a perfect example of a product designed by an engineer without the first idea how human beings will interact with the machine. And after nearly ten years, Microsoft hasn't admitted its basic flaws and corrected them. Their idea of "improving" the UI with XP was to give the old UI a Martha Stewart color scheme and apply shadows gratuitously, but otherwise leave the basic interface flaws uncorrected. I guess they don't need to care.

Timelessblur
Nov 21, 2004, 12:28 PM
My objections to Windows are less technical. IMO, the UI is an utter disaster. It's a perfect example of a product designed by an engineer without the first idea how human beings will interact with the machine. And after nearly ten years, Microsoft hasn't admitted its basic flaws and corrected them. Their idea of "improving" the UI with XP was to give the old UI a Martha Stewart color scheme and apply shadows gratuitously, but otherwise leave the basic interface flaws uncorrected. I guess they don't need to care.


I dont call that a valied aregument because I could easily make a list of things that I have hate and I have always hated about the mac OS dating back to the first mac and the list as only grown since then

russed
Nov 21, 2004, 12:36 PM
9. I re-install Windows every couple of months, using a Symantec Ghost image I took of a clean post-SP2 installation. I can get all my apps up and running in a few hours.


what i was saying before, a good os should mean you really dont have to do this. with my windows box at home it feels in need of a reinstall every few months (and i am sensible with how i use it) with my pb i have had it nearly a year and a half and if feels just as quick as when i got it. i beleive that is a sign of a good os.

VincentVega
Nov 21, 2004, 01:39 PM
what i was saying before, a good os should mean you really dont have to do this. with my windows box at home it feels in need of a reinstall every few months (and i am sensible with how i use it) with my pb i have had it nearly a year and a half and if feels just as quick as when i got it. i beleive that is a sign of a good os.

I agree. With Windows, you don't really get a choice. The registry (possibly the worst idea, ever?) fills up with crap, software doesn't uninstall properly and so on. It's just easier to fire up Ghost and ten minutes later, I have a nice fresh XP installation, including Office 2K3, VS.Net and all my settings in place. If you do it as often as I do, it's not really that much of an inconvenience, though in ideal world you shouldn't have to do it (as you say). From what I've read and seen about Longhorn/Windows 20xx, I can't see basic tenets of the design - the Registry and the like - being improved to any great degree.

I'm not overly experienced with OS X (though I do want to get an Apple laptop (at least) at some point in the future to go with my iPod - I can't switch entirely because of programs like VS.Net (which is useful for work) and Chief Architect (which I love)) though I have used Linux which has some similarities to OS X. My distribution of choice was Gentoo, and keeping it up-to-date was fairly painless (though the compiling was a PITA). From what I can see from OS X, updating it is much easier and doesn't have to take as long. Which sounds great!

Incidentally, I don't mind the "Martha Stewart" UI in XP. The "Blue" and "Olive" themes are hideous, but the "Silver" one isn't half bad. And if you turn ClearType on, you'll get anti-aliased fonts like OS X. Windows is getting there, but slowly. Very slowly. Compared to previous versions of Windows, XP is a complete triumph.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 21, 2004, 01:44 PM
I agree. With Windows, you don't really get a choice. The registry (possibly the worst idea, ever?) fills up with crap, software doesn't uninstall properly and so on. It's just easier to fire up Ghost and ten minutes later, I have a nice fresh XP installation, including Office 2K3, VS.Net and all my settings in place. If you do it as often as I do, it's not really that much of an inconvenience, though in ideal world you shouldn't have to do it (as you say). From what I've read and seen about Longhorn/Windows 20xx, I can't see basic tenets of the design - the Registry and the like - being improved to any great degree.

I'm not overly experienced with OS X (though I do want to get an Apple laptop (at least) at some point in the future to go with my iPod - I can't switch entirely because of programs like VS.Net (which is useful for work) and Chief Architect (which I love)) though I have used Linux which has some similarities to OS X. My distribution of choice was Gentoo, and keeping it up-to-date was fairly painless (though the compiling was a PITA). From what I can see from OS X, updating it is much easier and doesn't have to take as long. Which sounds great!

Incidentally, I don't mind the "Martha Stewart" UI in XP. The "Blue" and "Olive" themes are hideous, but the "Silver" one isn't half bad. And if you turn ClearType on, you'll get anti-aliased fonts like OS X. Windows is getting there, but slowly. Very slowly. Compared to previous versions of Windows, XP is a complete triumph.
What I'd do in your case is become an "adder", just like me - except the other way around. I started out with just a Mac, but I bought a Windows PC because I needed one for some things I couldn't do on the Mac.

Mechcozmo
Nov 21, 2004, 04:18 PM
I have some adware on my Windoze machine. I can't get rid of it. Good old McAffee can't do anything to it. I can 'quarantine' it but that doesn't do anything. It really sucks. I ended up looking at those 4 files and deleting them and then replacing them with notepad files with whatever extensions and filenames they had.

I hate XP because of the secuirity threat. Yes, I can secure it (I use Mozilla, have a two routers and a hub between this computer and the internet, and do weekly virus scans) but it is a major pain! I really hate that I need to do a virus sweep before I can use it. And the defragmenting that needs to be done... every two months. Every so often I need to check up on the BIOS to make sure than Windows has not tried to change my processor (Athlon XP 2500+) to some other setting.
Also, the file name extensions... I was rather upset when they showed up in 10.1. I like those to be hidden. ~Sigh~

Yotabyte
Nov 22, 2004, 07:07 AM
I have some adware on my Windoze machine. I can't get rid of it. Good old McAffee can't do anything to it. I can 'quarantine' it but that doesn't do anything. It really sucks. I ended up looking at those 4 files and deleting them and then replacing them with notepad files with whatever extensions and filenames they had.

I hate XP because of the secuirity threat. Yes, I can secure it (I use Mozilla, have a two routers and a hub between this computer and the internet, and do weekly virus scans) but it is a major pain! I really hate that I need to do a virus sweep before I can use it. And the defragmenting that needs to be done... every two months. Every so often I need to check up on the BIOS to make sure than Windows has not tried to change my processor (Athlon XP 2500+) to some other setting.
Also, the file name extensions... I was rather upset when they showed up in 10.1. I like those to be hidden. ~Sigh~

Get Adaware (do a google search), use that to scan your system. Also, many of these spyware producers have ways of removing spyware as they are all paranoid about being sued and want a way of defending their hide, so also look around and see if they have removal tools.

If you're installing and erasing a lot of stuff often, that is probably why you have to defrag. A good hard drive is a fragmented one! Although, I used my grandfathers computer for the first time in 4 years and the fragmentation level was something nasty like 90% so that isn't good.

Windows making BIOS changes????????

IJ Reilly
Nov 22, 2004, 07:32 PM
I dont call that a valied aregument because I could easily make a list of things that I have hate and I have always hated about the mac OS dating back to the first mac and the list as only grown since then

Go for it. Some things about the Mac UI are certainly less than perfect, and I could list quite a few gripes too -- but as far as I'm concerned, the Windows UI is just plain bad to the bone. No aspect of it appears to have been completely thought out in human interaction terms. I'd also point out that Apple is actively working to refine the the Mac UI, but OTOH Microsoft hasn't made any significant changes in the Windows UI nearly ten years, which suggest they think they've gotten it about right (or don't have to care that they haven't). These facts alone should tell you volumes about how the two companies approach the user interface.

IJ Reilly
Nov 22, 2004, 07:40 PM
Incidentally, I don't mind the "Martha Stewart" UI in XP. The "Blue" and "Olive" themes are hideous, but the "Silver" one isn't half bad. And if you turn ClearType on, you'll get anti-aliased fonts like OS X. Windows is getting there, but slowly. Very slowly. Compared to previous versions of Windows, XP is a complete triumph.

You've set the bar pretty low if you can call XP a triumph, complete or otherwise. Technically it's obviously better than the various iterations of 9x, but that's not saying much. My main objection to the color schemes in XP isn't so much that I hate the colors (though they are pretty bad), but that Microsoft thought they'd made the UI better simply by adding pastel shades and shadows. Microsoft's approach to product design has always been about trying to make the user feel superficially better about using the product without actually making it better to use -- "tarting up the pig," it's called.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 22, 2004, 07:53 PM
Go for it. Some things about the Mac UI are certainly less than perfect, and I could list quite a few gripes too -- but as far as I'm concerned, the Windows UI is just plain bad to the bone. No aspect of it appears to have been completely thought out in human interaction terms. I'd also point out that Apple is actively working to refine the the Mac UI, but OTOH Microsoft hasn't made any significant changes in the Windows UI nearly ten years, which suggest they think they've gotten it about right (or don't have to care that they haven't). These facts alone should tell you volumes about how the two companies approach the user interface.
So, does that mean for every point against Mac OS X, five can be brought against Windows XP? Therefore the score is:

Mac OS X: -1
Windows XP: -5

:)

IJ Reilly
Nov 22, 2004, 08:40 PM
So, does that mean for every point against Mac OS X, five can be brought against Windows XP? Therefore the score is:

Mac OS X: -1
Windows XP: -5

:)

I dunno, never thought of it quite that way. It isn't hard to distinguish relatively good design from relatively poor design. Computers aren't so much different than any other product. We make these sorts of qualitative distinctions all the time in the products we buy.

Timelessblur
Nov 22, 2004, 09:25 PM
I dunno, never thought of it quite that way. It isn't hard to distinguish relatively good design from relatively poor design. Computers aren't so much different than any other product. We make these sorts of qualitative distinctions all the time in the products we buy.

Hmm a lot of the stuff I hate about OSX UI is just personal perfeince stuff. Same as people complaints about the UI of XP. (secuitry is another matter) In the UI of OSX I hate the menu bar placement. I hate the lack of a task bar. I hate the fact that you can not full screen. but it mostly things like that.

Mechcozmo
Nov 22, 2004, 09:50 PM
Windows making BIOS changes????????

Thanks for the suggestion. And yes, it does on compatible motherboards change stuff around. Annoying when it hangs due to bad speed settings... :mad:

hulugu
Nov 22, 2004, 10:21 PM
Agree with all of the above who say it is not that hard to keep your computer safe and sound, and it does not take a *complete dweeb* ... Now I will concede that building your own computer takes a certain level of dweebyness, but the chicks dig that right :p. I personally always use XP Pro and then just change a few things over in the registry and a few other various places to close up a few open doors...NAV Cp, SpyBot, AdAware...um I think that is all I use and I have been virus free for...evar. No crazy programs in the Task manager, etc. It doesn't take too long to figure out what is what and close what you don't want/use.

This always strikes me as hilarious, akin to buying a new car tinkering with the engine, changing the tires, repainting it all just to get common performance. Changing things in the registry may be necessary, but what a hassle.

What about me, Toe? I have both a Mac and a Windows machine...but the Windows machine is permanently disconnected from the Internet. If I want to send something to my Windows machine, I just go online with my Mac, grab the file(s), then use Windows sharing to send them over. The Mac connects with AirPort wireless, and an Ethernet cable connects the Mac and PC. Internet connection sharing on the Mac is turned off.

This is just rediculous, to protect the PC it can't be on the internet? But, we've done something similar using a Linux box as a mail server scrubbing infected emails before the users even have the choice of hitting Ok I would like to install spyware.

MS made bad choices when it started with Windows, and these poor choices just keep coming back: RPC for example, a barely used protocol that became a series of flaws. Frankly, if MS really wants to solve their security they should rewrite the code from the ground up and break some backward compatibility, but they won't and they can't.

hulugu
Nov 22, 2004, 10:37 PM
No I dont think Mac useser are more tech savey people. They general pop is about the same as windows pop. Most them are clueless and dont know what they are doing. Just OSX is a lot more forgiving if you dont do critcal updates (which now by defaulted is automaticly download instaled on windows). a lot more forgiving in lack of antivirus (it is a matter of time before OSX gets some big viruses). Forgiving in not having a firewall (which if you dont have a firewall I still going to say you are an idiot since the main reason to have a firewall is to keep people out and to control what data is sent out from your computer)

I disagree with this, many Macintosh users have made a specific choice regarding their machine, some have to support their own machines even in contradiction to official IT policies. Furthermore, the software firewall in OSX is on by default as is the firewall on the Airport, so Mac users automatically have some very good protection. And with .Mac Apple gives users Virex.
Now, Mac users have to cop to a general anti-Virus system because one is eventually coming down the pipe, and they have to become more security aware, but they are better off by default.
Furthemore, as bad as it is, Windows users have yet to face a real virus, something the equivalent of ebola, spreads fast and then attacks the system itself. Then, this will become a problem people really pay attention to.

puckhead193
Nov 22, 2004, 11:09 PM
I don't understand why Apple doesn't have a whole marketing campaign about this.

You just need a windows user saying: "I split my computer time between three important tasks: fighting viruses, fighting spyware, and fighting spam. On the rare instances that I'm not doing one of those, I spend the rest of my time fighting the stupid Windows operating system."

--
http://www.wanderingphilosopher.com/



HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh. so true....

Timelessblur
Nov 22, 2004, 11:38 PM
This always strikes me as hilarious, akin to buying a new car tinkering with the engine, changing the tires, repainting it all just to get common performance. Changing things in the registry may be necessary, but what a hassle.



This is just rediculous, to protect the PC it can't be on the internet? But, we've done something similar using a Linux box as a mail server scrubbing infected emails before the users even have the choice of hitting Ok I would like to install spyware.

MS made bad choices when it started with Windows, and these poor choices just keep coming back: RPC for example, a barely used protocol that became a series of flaws. Frankly, if MS really wants to solve their security they should rewrite the code from the ground up and break some backward compatibility, but they won't and they can't.
\


Umm dune you might want to change who you quoted because i never said whaty ou quoted me saying. Please either deleted it or fix it to who ever orignal posted it

Timelessblur
Nov 22, 2004, 11:40 PM
I disagree with this, many Macintosh users have made a specific choice regarding their machine, some have to support their own machines even in contradiction to official IT policies. Furthermore, the software firewall in OSX is on by default as is the firewall on the Airport, so Mac users automatically have some very good protection. And with .Mac Apple gives users Virex.
Now, Mac users have to cop to a general anti-Virus system because one is eventually coming down the pipe, and they have to become more security aware, but they are better off by default.
Furthemore, as bad as it is, Windows users have yet to face a real virus, something the equivalent of ebola, spreads fast and then attacks the system itself. Then, this will become a problem people really pay attention to.

The mac firewall is basicly the same as the XP firewall which is just turned on by SP2. It protect against incoming attacks but it is worthless against infomation being sent out and you can not control it setting very easily

IJ Reilly
Nov 23, 2004, 12:02 AM
Hmm a lot of the stuff I hate about OSX UI is just personal perfeince stuff. Same as people complaints about the UI of XP. (secuitry is another matter) In the UI of OSX I hate the menu bar placement. I hate the lack of a task bar. I hate the fact that you can not full screen. but it mostly things like that.

IOW, a lot (most? all?) of what you hate about OSX is that it's designed differently than Windows, whereas none of my complaints about Windows are based on personal preference per se -- but on human engineering issues, or more specifically, Microsoft's utter lack of concern for them. I can easily start with the example of how Windows is (are?) shut down, which is a total cognitive bollox. Then we can move onto what happens in Windows when you connect an external drive or insert removable media into a drive (nothing). It's like pushing a button on a machine and then having to push another button to find out if the first button did anything.

angelneo
Nov 23, 2004, 03:06 AM
I dont call that a valied aregument because I could easily make a list of things that I have hate and I have always hated about the mac OS dating back to the first mac and the list as only grown since then
Have a read about HCI and perhaps you can appreciate Mac UI better. IJ Reilly concerns are quite valid. The main reason you did not see it is that you are too accustomed to windows UI. Software UI issues are even more critical especially in areas such as Air Craft Control Systems etc.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 23, 2004, 04:26 AM
This is just rediculous, to protect the PC it can't be on the internet? But, we've done something similar using a Linux box as a mail server scrubbing infected emails before the users even have the choice of hitting Ok I would like to install spyware.

MS made bad choices when it started with Windows, and these poor choices just keep coming back: RPC for example, a barely used protocol that became a series of flaws. Frankly, if MS really wants to solve their security they should rewrite the code from the ground up and break some backward compatibility, but they won't and they can't.
Hey hulugu - I posted that, not Timelessblur.

Anyway, it may not seem so ridiculous anymore if you consider these things:
1. I would only be using the Internet for two things: Windows Update and downloading program installers.
2. I frequently transfer files between my Mac and my PC, and my transfer speeds absolutely stink unless the Mac and PC are directly connected like they are now (which means that the PC has no Internet access, since it lacks a wireless card and therefore depends on Ethernet, which is used for the direct connection).

Regarding your second point, I couldn't agree more on how much a total, ground-up rewrite of Windows would help security (assuming that MS made more sensible design decisions when rewriting).

Savage Henry
Nov 23, 2004, 04:34 AM
I couldn't agree more on how much a total, ground-up rewrite of Windows would help security (assuming that MS made more sensible design decisions when rewriting).

Isn't that what's holding Longhorn up? The re-write can only help the computing world in the long run. The chances are that whichever job I'm in I will be sat in front of a Wintel, so the idea that it's continually developed to be safer and better is fine with me.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 23, 2004, 04:49 AM
Isn't that what's holding Longhorn up? The re-write can only help the computing world in the long run. The chances are that whichever job I'm in I will be sat in front of a Wintel, so the idea that it's continually developed to be safer and better is fine with me.
Microsoft SAID they rewrote Windows NT from the ground up, but in reality they "borrowed" the kernel and core OS from elsewhere, and refitted it into Windows NT. Does that tell you anything about how lazy Microsoft is?

I'd guess that Microsoft's being lazy again, and not really rewriting Windows, just "borrowing" stuff they need from elsewhere and from the existing NT kernel, then sandwiching it all together into what we'll know as Windows Longhorn.

Savage Henry
Nov 23, 2004, 05:46 AM
I'd guess that Microsoft's being lazy again, and not really rewriting Windows, just "borrowing" stuff they need from elsewhere and from the existing NT kernel, then sandwiching it all together into what we'll know as Windows Longhorn.

Deep down I fear you may be right. But I'm giving them the benefits of my doubts .... for now. I'm just still struggling to understand how it's taking them this long. I thought it may be some marketting scam that iby the time it eventually comes out, no one will have an OS that's younger than 4 years old, so the chances of it selling big numbers very quickly are greater.

kiwi-in-uk
Nov 23, 2004, 06:16 AM
Deep down I fear you may be right. But I'm giving them the benefits of my doubts .... for now. I'm just still struggling to understand how it's taking them this long. I thought it may be some marketting scam that iby the time it eventually comes out, no one will have an OS that's younger than 4 years old, so the chances of it selling big numbers very quickly are greater.

From Paul Thurrott's Winsupersite (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_preview_2004.asp) ...

Back to square one. During the same set of meetings reference above, I discovered that the core Windows team, which had been working to componentized Longhorn, had given up and would restart their efforts using the Windows XP SP2 code base (previous Longhorn builds had utilized the Windows Server 2003 code base)

Timelessblur
Nov 23, 2004, 07:48 AM
IOW, a lot (most? all?) of what you hate about OSX is that it's designed differently than Windows, whereas none of my complaints about Windows are based on personal preference per se -- but on human engineering issues, or more specifically, Microsoft's utter lack of concern for them. I can easily start with the example of how Windows is (are?) shut down, which is a total cognitive bollox. Then we can move onto what happens in Windows when you connect an external drive or insert removable media into a drive (nothing). It's like pushing a button on a machine and then having to push another button to find out if the first button did anything.


hmm some of them yeah are from being use to windows other ones of them I have hated before I ever touch a windows computer. Particler the menu system and lack of full screen ablilty. I have hated all the pull down menus are at the top of the screen since I was 8 and using one of the first macs. So that a vailad hate. Personly I never understood why it never was just on the windows that you are using.

The task bar well the lack there off hurts macs because Macs have nouthing that is as effeniced and as fast as jumping bettween mulitple windows. Expos is good but not nearly as fast or has easy. the dock is close but at best it is a wanna be taskbar. Mainly everything but how diffent windows are stored on the task bar Mac OS's have had just in diffence location so thta works but the lack of having a way to jump bettween muiltple windows is bother some.


Full screen. Lets see considering I have seen that a very comon complaint across reviewing sites and many people complain. OSX windows size control is crap compared ot XP. They lack full screen and you can only resize the window from one corner compared to XP where you can do it from any side of corner. OSX really could use one if not both of those features.

Most of my compains come from my engineering view and from just simple logic on easy of jumping around.

Savage Henry
Nov 23, 2004, 07:48 AM
From Paul Thurrott's Winsupersite (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_preview_2004.asp) ...
Thanks for the site link, but it does make me gloomily think whether Microsoft engineers are so out of their depth with this one.

Longhorn: Same Windows, just slightly different colour.

BornAgainMac
Nov 23, 2004, 09:50 AM
I found that the taskbar in Windows is unusable when you have more than a few windows open. The dock rocks!

IJ Reilly
Nov 23, 2004, 10:09 AM
I'm just still struggling to understand how it's taking them this long.

Why do you think it's called "Longhorn?" Actually, there's a second reason, but I'll let you figure that one out yourself. :)

Applespider
Nov 23, 2004, 10:28 AM
So that a vailad hate. Personly I never understood why it never was just on the windows that you are using.

The task bar well the lack there off hurts macs because Macs have nouthing that is as effeniced and as fast as jumping bettween mulitple windows.

Full screen. Lets see considering I have seen that a very comon complaint across reviewing sites and many people complain.

Most of my compains come from my engineering view and from just simple logic on easy of jumping around.

Most of your complaints come from using Windows primarily and getting used to that way of doing things - I shared some of them for a while and they're always the first 3 that potential switchers bring up along with the one button mouse.

The first one is still a personal preference regardless of how long you've held it. I think your first and third complaints are linked. If the menus aren't linked to the window, then there's no need to have the window full sized. The only reason I have the window full sized on my work XP machine is so that I can always find the menu bar at the top. Otherwise, with the current screen resolutions and bigger screens meaning that I end up with lots of white space on the right hand side, I'd prefer working in smaller windows with more applications visible.

So my personal preference is having my menu bar at the top and the flexibility to see more things like working in Excel, looking at my iTunes (Synergy) title and seeing what Mail is up to in the background. The green button on the Mac takes the application to a good usable width most of the time, if I really feel the need to make it bigger, I can.

As far as the task bar goes, yes, it's handy if I'm working in multiple Excel windows creating formulas that cross them. But too many things open and it gets too small to read. The new XP of linking all the program windows for one application together can be good but when you've got used to one always being midway across the screen and suddenly it's not, it's annoying. I like my disappearing Dock that I can just click on the active programme - or more likely on both systems I just Alt Tab!

I agree with the earlier statements about 'most' users. My mother had a PC for years - I'd update it with NAV etc and head back to London. 2 months later she'd have a virus - the concept of updating virus definitions and Windows updates was something she didn't really think about particularly while on a dial-up connection. It as too much hassle. Now she has an iBook! ;) And I get a lot less 'help' calls - we can talk about good stuff

Timelessblur
Nov 23, 2004, 10:29 AM
I found that the taskbar in Windows is unusable when you have more than a few windows open. The dock rocks!


all depends on monitor resolution. I currenlty have 12 diffent windows in mine (none of them group) and it not press for space. It starts grouping them at when there are 5 windows from the same place (like 5 folder open 5 windows from firefox AIM ect.) I find it very usefull. Now I give you by the time I hit 15 it starting to get pressed but normaly by then I things started getting grouped. It all how you choose to use it. I have mine set up for give most of it room to windows. The Quick launch is only 4 icons wide and on the other side where the clock is I have a vast majority of those icons hidden but if I open it up yeah my task bar is pressed for space but all those icons I have hidden on ones that I really dont need to see or ever need to really see if I need them I just exapaned it out for a second get to it. Personly I find the dock weak and slow for nagiation mulitple windows.

Mind you the dock blows quick launch away but all things considing that dock gain in the quick launch is a very small thing and the weakness in navagtion mulitple it to high of a price to pay.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 23, 2004, 10:37 AM
all depends on monitor resolution. I currenlty have 12 diffent windows in mine (none of them group) and it not press for space. It starts grouping them at when there are 5 windows from the same place (like 5 folder open 5 windows from firefox AIM ect.) I find it very usefull. Now I give you by the time I hit 15 it starting to get pressed but normaly by then I things started getting grouped. It all how you choose to use it. I have mine set up for give most of it room to windows. The Quick launch is only 4 icons wide and on the other side where the clock is I have a vast majority of those icons hidden but if I open it up yeah my task bar is pressed for space but all those icons I have hidden on ones that I really dont need to see or ever need to really see if I need them I just exapaned it out for a second get to it. Personly I find the dock weak and slow for nagiation mulitple windows.

Mind you the dock blows quick launch away but all things considing that dock gain in the quick launch is a very small thing and the weakness in navagtion mulitple it to high of a price to pay.
Another weakness of Quick Launch is that the icons aren't true proxies - that is, you can't drag stuff to the icon to open it with that application.

IJ Reilly
Nov 23, 2004, 10:48 AM
hmm some of them yeah are from being use to windows other ones of them I have hated before I ever touch a windows computer. Particler the menu system and lack of full screen ablilty. I have hated all the pull down menus are at the top of the screen since I was 8 and using one of the first macs. So that a vailad hate. Personly I never understood why it never was just on the windows that you are using.

The task bar well the lack there off hurts macs because Macs have nouthing that is as effeniced and as fast as jumping bettween mulitple windows. Expos is good but not nearly as fast or has easy. the dock is close but at best it is a wanna be taskbar. Mainly everything but how diffent windows are stored on the task bar Mac OS's have had just in diffence location so thta works but the lack of having a way to jump bettween muiltple windows is bother some.


Full screen. Lets see considering I have seen that a very comon complaint across reviewing sites and many people complain. OSX windows size control is crap compared ot XP. They lack full screen and you can only resize the window from one corner compared to XP where you can do it from any side of corner. OSX really could use one if not both of those features.

Most of my compains come from my engineering view and from just simple logic on easy of jumping around.

I'd suggest that "full screen ability" is a bit of an abstract quality for most users. Personally, I have no idea why it should be seen as such a virtue, especially when it comes at the price of having application menus located at the tops of windows, which not only takes up the same amount of unusable screen real estate for every open window, but also scatters menus around the work area. It's more efficient for the user to find menus when they're in the same location every time. (Just so we're clear, this wasn't some sort of "mistake" Apple made, but a deliberate design decision based on human engineering principles.) The lack of a fixed menu bar in Windows is also why Windows is stuck with that awful Start menu. They needed a place to put system-wide functions but instead of including this requirement in the UI design process, they just tacked it on awkwardly at the end.

As for jumping between windows on the Mac, I just click on the application icon in the Dock, and there they are. I'm not sure how the Windows Task Bar makes this operation easier, and certainly in other ways, it's far less functional than the Dock. For one thing, on the Mac it's easy to determine which applications can open a given file simply by dragging it over the Dock icons, then dropping when you find the application you want to use. If such a thing is even possible in Windows, then for the life of me I can't figure out how.

Oh, and you'd think that since the Task Bar stores collapsed open windows, that you'd be able to drag an open window to the bar. Try it sometime -- the result is amusingly counterintuitive. And while I'm thinking of it, what happens when you try to drag a Windows program to the desktop? Does the result make sense, and was this the behavior you were expecting? Incidentally, why are they called "programs" in some parts of Windows, and "applications" in another? Why didn't Microsoft think through this small, simple detail? And so on.

Resizing windows. Sure, it would be nice if windows could be resized by dragging on any side, but this comes at the price of lost screen real estate. And since the green button control does essentially what you want, I'm not sure what functionality is lost.

Timelessblur
Nov 23, 2004, 11:01 AM
I'd suggest that "full screen ability" is a bit of an abstract quality for most users. Personally, I have no idea why it should be seen as such a virtue, especially when it comes at the price of having application menus located at the tops of windows, which not only takes up the same amount of unusable screen real estate for every open window, but also scatters menus around the work area. It's more efficient for the user to find menus when they're in the same location every time. (Just so we're clear, this wasn't some sort of "mistake" Apple made, but a deliberate design decision based on human engineering principles.) The lack of a fixed menu bar in Windows is also why Windows is stuck with that awful Start menu. They needed a place to put system-wide functions but instead of including this requirement in the UI design process, they just tacked it on awkwardly at the end.

As for jumping between windows on the Mac, I just click on the application icon in the Dock, and there they are. I'm not sure how the Windows Task Bar makes this operation easier, and certainly in other ways, it's far less functional than the Dock. For one thing, on the Mac it's easy to determine which applications can open a given file simply by dragging it over the Dock icons, then dropping when you find the application you want to use. If such a thing is even possible in Windows, then for the life of me I can't figure out how.

Oh, and you'd think that since the Task Bar stores collapsed open windows, that you'd be able to drag an open window to the bar. Try it sometime -- the result is amusingly counterintuitive. And while I'm thinking of it, what happens when you try to drag a Windows program to the desktop? Does the result make sense, and was this the behavior you were expecting? Incidentally, why are they called "programs" in some parts of Windows, and "applications" in another? Why didn't Microsoft think through this small, simple detail? And so on.

Resizing windows. Sure, it would be nice if windows could be resized by dragging on any side, but this comes at the price of lost screen real estate. And since the green button control does essentially what you want, I'm not sure what functionality is lost.


umm dude you I have not clue what you are saying about the windows task bar. Draging folder apps there. All windows weather they are active or minmized. Dock only puts them if they are minmized which is the weakness is.

Menu I think I stated I though it was crap since day one since before windows 95. Never liked it then still dont like it. I always though they should be a the top of the active window.

Star menu onces you get used to it it a very powerful thing and a very easy way to access programs but people who seem to stuggle with it hte most are Mac user who have no clue how to use it. If it set up correclty it a very nice thing. but each OS has something like the start menu so I consider it a pointless thing to complain about. Alt tabing is nice up to a point but it usefullness starts to be useless in dealling with number of open windows long before the task bar.

Btw I would never use the one mouse button arguemtn since the first thing I do on any computer is toss the mouse and replace it with one I want.

7on
Nov 23, 2004, 11:30 AM
Okay, now that i've read a bit more of the topic I will make another reply!

I blame Microsoft as it's fun. Of course Windows is targeted, still most of the computers on this planet that are connected by the net or otherwise to each other are windows and as a result virus coders are hitting the most people at one time. If it was reversed, apple was the world's largest provider of computer software, we'd see about the same amount of viruses written for apple. I think it's good that Microsoft is the target for all of these viruses, trojans, worms, spyware etc, it means that the Mac users use Windows as a sacrificial anode, its a method of Mac virus protection!


Check out this article I found on my Harddrive (it is written from a Linux/unix standpoint, but Applies here too)

Isn't Microsoft Corporation's market dominance, making Linux an insignificant target, the only reason it doesn't have a virus problem? Not at all. This question is virus pundits' pons asinorum: If they can't think past this fallacy, don't even try to reason with them, as they're hopelessly mired in rationalisation. The speaker's supposition is that virus writers will (like himself) ignore anything the least bit unfamiliar, and attack only the most-common user software and operating systems, thus explaining why Unix viruses are essentially unknown in the field. This is doubly fallacious: 1. It ignores Unix's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn't happen. 2. Even aside from that, it completely fails to account for observed fact: Assume that only 1% of Internet-reachable hosts run x86 Linux (a conservative figure). Assume that only one virus writer out of 1000 targets Unixes. Then, given the near-instant communication across the Net that at this writing is blitzing my Linux Web server with dozens of futile probes for the Microsoft "Nimda" vulnerability per second, the product of that one virus writer's work should be a nagging problem on Linux machines everywhere -- and he'll be working very hard to achieve that, given the bragging rights he would gain. Yet, it's not there. Where is it? The answer is that, for various reasons discussed in prior essays, such code is very easy to write, but completely impractical to propagate. And likely to remain so.

I like specifically the "bragging rights" part.

As for jumping between windows on the Mac, I just click on the application icon in the Dock, and there they are. I'm not sure how the Windows Task Bar makes this operation easier, and certainly in other ways, it's far less functional than the Dock. For one thing, on the Mac it's easy to determine which applications can open a given file simply by dragging it over the Dock icons, then dropping when you find the application you want to use. If such a thing is even possible in Windows, then for the life of me I can't figure out how.


Command + ` will cylce through windows in an application under OSX

IJ Reilly
Nov 23, 2004, 11:45 AM
umm dude you I have not clue what you are saying about the windows task bar. Draging folder apps there. All windows weather they are active or minmized. Dock only puts them if they are minmized which is the weakness is.

Menu I think I stated I though it was crap since day one since before windows 95. Never liked it then still dont like it. I always though they should be a the top of the active window.

Star menu onces you get used to it it a very powerful thing and a very easy way to access programs but people who seem to stuggle with it hte most are Mac user who have no clue how to use it. If it set up correclty it a very nice thing. but each OS has something like the start menu so I consider it a pointless thing to complain about. Alt tabing is nice up to a point but it usefullness starts to be useless in dealling with number of open windows long before the task bar.

Btw I would never use the one mouse button arguemtn since the first thing I do on any computer is toss the mouse and replace it with one I want.

Dude, I do know what I'm talking about because I've tried it. "Dragging folder apps" is a concept that eludes me though, so maybe you should explain it.

Also, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't going to argue about personal preferences. I'm also not going to debate what a person "can get used to," because a person can "get used to" nearly anything -- including prison, if they are forced to stay in one. So that is an utterly useless concept where product design is concerned (except perhaps when you're dealing with a monopoly, so perhaps the prison analogy applies here).

BornAgainMac
Nov 23, 2004, 02:00 PM
Mind you the dock blows quick launch away but all things considing that dock gain in the quick launch is a very small thing and the weakness in navagtion mulitple it to high of a price to pay.

I prefer how the dock resizes as I have additional running programs. If it gets too small I can have it enlarge the icon so that I can see it when I move the mouse to it. In Windows, I see "Microsoft..." in the program name and I don't know if it's Microsoft Word or Excel. I tried creating a Start panel and moved it to the side and it was more useful.

Dragging a folder to the Dock with alias to all common programs or even just a folder has been huge.

Having said all that, it is interesting to hear from a Windows power user their prospective of the dock and the taskbar. Both are very different approaches to managing windows.

Mord
Nov 23, 2004, 02:07 PM
I have no viruses, and no ad/spy/mal-ware. Why? I use Firefox, install my windows updates, and run NAV Corp. It's not rocket science.


yes but you dont use your pc much do you. ;)

Mav451
Nov 23, 2004, 02:17 PM
Regarding the start menu, I believe he is referring to "Pin to Start Menu".
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ahuang/pin.JPG


This appears in the context menu whenever you right-click over an EXE file (i.e. in Program Files). If you set up Start Menu to use

1) Small Icons
2) 0 for # of Programs in Start Menu (this prevents XP from adding the programs it "thinks" is getting used often). I find that if you drag all the applications you use yourself into it (or using Pin) it allows quick access to anything.

Here's a picture of my Start Menu:
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ahuang/startmenu.JPG

TENBLUE7
Nov 23, 2004, 02:29 PM
...not only XP but everything Windows, I've been using mac's for nearly ten years and everything Windows or PC is a joke, take putting a new system on for example.

My old mans Dell Lap Top upgraded from 2k to XP just as bad if not worse, so:

Boot from ME floppy
Format C:
Not supported because the HD has some crazy partition going on
F Disk delete non logical partition then create logical partition
Format C: (again with success)
F Disk (name the b*stard)
Boot from CD
invalid system disk, please retry
Scream throw everything at the wall, cry, kiss my G5.
Boot again but hit return before the time out kicks in and it works!
Wait a week for it to install and crash three times
Install a SP update that makes everything worse than before.
Re do all the above six months later.

On a mac:

Insert CD hold down C
Disk Utility - wipe required drive
Install

I love Apple, and my old man is beginning to see the light and is looking for a G4 iBook.

:)

Toe
Nov 23, 2004, 02:37 PM
On a mac:

Insert CD hold down C
Disk Utility - wipe required drive
Install
Actually, with recent versions of OS X, you can do the same thing by:

Insert CD
Double-click Installer
Follow prompts

The installer will reboot for you, and will wipe the drive as an option.

Oh, and in an enterprise environment, it's awesome:

Reboot holding N
Select the appropriate Image

That is, reboot off of a specially-built net-boot image (I.T. has to builkd this image, mind you) on the Xserve. That image has a startup script which wipes the hard drive (OK, since you're net-booting) then installs OS X custom-configured to the company. One-touch complete rebuild of a computer.

IJ Reilly
Nov 23, 2004, 03:43 PM
Regarding the start menu, I believe he is referring to "Pin to Start Menu".

This appears in the context menu whenever you right-click over an EXE file (i.e. in Program Files). If you set up Start Menu to use

1) Small Icons
2) 0 for # of Programs in Start Menu (this prevents XP from adding the programs it "thinks" is getting used often). I find that if you drag all the applications you use yourself into it (or using Pin) it allows quick access to anything.

I'm aware of this, but you bring up another Windows annoyance, the fact that it's way over-designed to anticipate what the user wants to do -- or more accurately, XP assumes that the user is a chimpanzee with no idea what they want to do, let alone, how to do it. With a new Windows setup, you need to go through and methodically turn off the default "I am a big dumb hairy ape" settings. (The cartoon assistant is especially insulting to intelligent bipeds.)

Applespider
Nov 23, 2004, 04:12 PM
XP assumes that the user is a chimpanzee with no idea what they want to do, let alone, how to do it. With a new Windows setup, you need to go through and methodically turn off the default "I am a big dumb hairy ape" settings

Ironic though that we've gone through this thread assuming that most XP users aren't techie enough to understand critical upgrades, updating virus definitions, checking for spyware, installing a different browser, using a popup blocker - let alone understanding not to click on just any window. And then we slag off XP for treating people like they don't know jack. Or perhaps it's just that XP's little messages emphasise the wrong things.

brap
Nov 23, 2004, 04:22 PM
Or perhaps it's just that XP's little messages emphasise the wrong things.
Absolutely true. It makes it hell for the 'power' user to set up a system to begin with through Retard Fluff, but you try to open a Works 6 file in Office XP...

The Windows 'Help and support centre' is a joke; I could list the rare occasions on which I've needed to use it for one reason or another and been utterly infuriated - if I hadn't repressed them.

Toe
Nov 23, 2004, 04:25 PM
Absolutely true. It makes it hell for the 'power' user to set up a system to begin with through Retard Fluff, but you try to open a Works 6 file in Office XP...
What I love is the books about Office; nay about just Word. The typical Microsoft Word book is over 600 pages. For a word processor. What the fork is MS thinking?

If Word 5 worked perfectly/natively in Panther, I'd dump Office 2004 in a second.

IJ Reilly
Nov 23, 2004, 05:21 PM
Ironic though that we've gone through this thread assuming that most XP users aren't techie enough to understand critical upgrades, updating virus definitions, checking for spyware, installing a different browser, using a popup blocker - let alone understanding not to click on just any window. And then we slag off XP for treating people like they don't know jack. Or perhaps it's just that XP's little messages emphasise the wrong things.

I haven't made this assumption personally, but I think this is a related technical issue. Windows makes you know scads of things an ordinary user should not have to learn. I don't believe the consuming public would tolerate any other product that demanded so much care and feeding in ordinary daily use but at the same time treated them like they were dopes.

rueyeet
Nov 23, 2004, 05:28 PM
1. My computer is permanently connected to the Internet, but sits behind a router (so other PCs can share the connection), making it invisible from the outside world.
2. I use the Opera browser for all my web surfing, apart from Firefox (for GMail) and Internet Exploder (for Windows Update).
3. I use WebWasher to filter out pop-ups, ads and other junk. This makes Web browsing much nicer. I strongly recommend WW - it works very well with both Opera and Firefox (Download link (http://www.webwasher.com/client/download/private_use/windows/index.html?lang=de_EN)).
4. Symantec Antivirus is running permanently. Fully up-to-date.
5. Running XP SP2, Automatic Updates are turned on, so any critical updates are downloaded and installed for me in the background. I check for non-critical updates and Office 2003 patches regularly and use Microsoft Baseline Security Adviser to check for anything else required (MBSA download link (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mbsahome.mspx)).
6. I use AdAware to scan for spyware. It picks up cookies and that's about it.
7. I have a number of email addresses. My main one is used for people whom I trust (family, friends) and companies whom I feel have good reputations (Apple, Amazon, etc). I use free ones (GMail, Yahoo) for signing up for forums and for people whom I don't entirely trust not to send me silly pictures in an email.
8. When posting on Usenet, I spoof my email address and use a fake name.
9. I re-install Windows every couple of months, using a Symantec Ghost image I took of a clean post-SP2 installation. I can get all my apps up and running in a few hours.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

So, to fully protect yourself, you had to buy a router and Symantec AV, then you had to make use of Opera, Web Washer, AdAware, and Microsoft's Baseline Security Advisor. Five programs that don't come with the OS. How many of those were free? and how much research and experience to have assembled all those pieces? And that's along with the commonsense of being careful with your email addresses, and doing regular updates of Windows and your AV, and not opening funny attachments and whatnot.

Gee, on my Mac, I run System Update every so often. And that's it. I've already got a firewall, can get away without AV, and don't need the ad-blockers and pop-up blockers and spyware blockers because Safari isn't loaded with vulnerabilities like IE is. And I haven't had to install a single thing beyond what came with my Mac.

I certainly have had no need to reinstall my system, not even once over the last two years, and my TiBook still runs as well as the day I got it.

Why do Windows users put up with this? Every single person who's said, "oh, but Windows isn't that bad" has listed all the usual suspects: Don't use IE, use this for spyware, that for adware, the other for popups, and don't forget to get a firewall and an AV. Out of the box, from the get-go, a Mac user doesn't have to worry about ANY of that!

I agree, an ad campaign is in order. Show the Windows user and Mac user unpacking their new computers. Then show the Windows user installing his AV program while the Mac user checks his email; show the Windows user installing his malware blockers while the Mac user fires up Safari and gets surfing; show the Windows user installing his firewall (or applying SP2 to turn it on) while the Mac user has some fun in iTunes (which a lot of people ought to recognize on sight by now!). Then show the Windows user finally firing up IE, and doing the standard closing of all the resulting pop-ups, while the Mac user just clicks "Block Pop-Ups" and keeps on surfin'.

If I had to run Windows at home in this day and age, I'd be driven mad.

Mav451
Nov 23, 2004, 09:43 PM
Um, for me its pretty simple.

Use Firefox. Use Thunderbird and don't open attachments period.

That's it.
With those two simple rules I keep out spyware, viruses, and with SP2 a half-assed (hah) firewall is up by default (but better than nothing). That's with 0 effort on my part.

I guess with all the free time left, I can go play CS:Source, watch movies, or fool around in Photoshop, or play around in iTunes as you so put it (and yes I actually do use iTunes).

Mac users make it seem like hell, but i've been using XP for the past 2 years, w/o any formats, and its just fine here.

Mav451
Nov 23, 2004, 10:01 PM
...not only XP but everything Windows, I've been using mac's for nearly ten years and everything Windows or PC is a joke, take putting a new system on for example.

My old mans Dell Lap Top upgraded from 2k to XP just as bad if not worse, so:

Boot from ME floppy
Format C:
Not supported because the HD has some crazy partition going on
F Disk delete non logical partition then create logical partition
Format C: (again with success)
F Disk (name the b*stard)
Boot from CD
invalid system disk, please retry
Scream throw everything at the wall, cry, kiss my G5.
Boot again but hit return before the time out kicks in and it works!
Wait a week for it to install and crash three times
Install a SP update that makes everything worse than before.
Re do all the above six months later.

On a mac:

Insert CD hold down C
Disk Utility - wipe required drive
Install

I love Apple, and my old man is beginning to see the light and is looking for a G4 iBook.

:)


If by ME you are referring to the Millenium Edition, then that's your problem there. How do I set up a new system? Uh, format the old partition, create a new one, then let XP run through the install.

3 steps. Its not even close to what you exaggerated it to be.

daveL
Nov 23, 2004, 10:06 PM
Well, I finally got my wife to switch from XP to an iMac G5. She couldn't be happier, and I'm happy too, since I don't have to maintain that piece of crap (1.8 GHz P4 Dell) anymore. I spent more time screwing with that thing than I did with my 2 Macs and a Linux box. Sometimes people just don't want to admit that they went down the wrong road, like the majority of the population. A cheap price with a ton of marketing doesn't make something good.

Mechcozmo
Nov 23, 2004, 10:31 PM
Use Firefox. Use Thunderbird and don't open attachments period.

That, right there, is about 200% more than you should need to put into a computer. A browser, made and distributed open source (aka, free) should not have to be the default browser that you must use! There is a Safari/FireFox argument, always will be one (well, most likely) and that is moot. Because Safari has less holes than IE. It is the default browser. The Mac side, it is a preference thing. The Windows side, you must go to FireFox or risk the consequences. And that is not right for a default browser and 10% of the freakin' operating system! Same argument with Thunderbird.

You can use Mail and be happy. Period. But try Outlook Express! That is like taking an open wound and dumping rotten meat in it, then closing it. You will be infected.

hulugu
Nov 23, 2004, 10:38 PM
Ironic though that we've gone through this thread assuming that most XP users aren't techie enough to understand critical upgrades, updating virus definitions, checking for spyware, installing a different browser, using a popup blocker - let alone understanding not to click on just any window. And then we slag off XP for treating people like they don't know jack. Or perhaps it's just that XP's little messages emphasise the wrong things.

XP has a tendency to do both: it treats power-users with a series of idiotic questions and wizards, and makes users who are clueless feel like they have some idea about their systems. XP manages to be too easy to use at first and then has an excedingly difficult power curve to keep it up.
OSX is easy at first and then allows power-users to do even more powerful things without the system getting in the way.
XP messages are meaningless jibberish almost all the time, and while OSX can spit the the occasional WTH? most of the time the alerts make sense and are always phrased in a specifically blameless way.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 24, 2004, 04:30 AM
I haven't made this assumption personally, but I think this is a related technical issue. Windows makes you know scads of things an ordinary user should not have to learn. I don't believe the consuming public would tolerate any other product that demanded so much care and feeding in ordinary daily use but at the same time treated them like they were dopes.
There's one other thing I should bring up about Windows XP (Pro) - it is so poorly designed that if you don't go into Group Policy (available ONLY in Win XP Pro, not Home) and disable Windows Messenger then restart, once you've set up a Passport like it demands that you do, you'll get bombarded with ads and spim (IM spam) once the bad guys find your account (if they haven't already), which usually takes less than 1 week.

jeremy.king
Nov 24, 2004, 10:02 AM
Another weakness of Quick Launch is that the icons aren't true proxies - that is, you can't drag stuff to the icon to open it with that application.

I can :confused: Do it all the time.

The only problem I see is that the icon doesn't change state (like highlighting or something) when you drag a file over thaticon to show you you are actually on top of that icon - cause if you miss...well, you got a new quick launch item.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 24, 2004, 10:04 AM
I can :confused: Do it all the time.

The only problem I see is that the icon doesn't change state (like highlighting or something) when you drag a file over thaticon to show you you are actually on top of that icon - cause if you miss...well, you got a new quick launch item.
I forgot that you can do that, but the lack of feedback from Windows is annoying, and hides the fact that this functionality exists.

Mav451
Nov 24, 2004, 10:37 AM
Hah, what do you know, I learn something new. I didn't know you could do that in Quick Launch, but I just tried to drag a file over the icon in Start Menu, and voila, it works.

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ahuang/icon.JPG