Linked by Ioan-Alexandru Lazar on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 14:58 UTC
Windows Among the few things I'm proud of in my life, not having had contact with Windows when I first "met" a computer is somewhere around the top. Indeed, the first computer I used ran Unix, and I have been using Unices myself for some time.
Order by: Score:
Proud?
by Lambda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:15 UTC
Lambda
Member since:
2006-07-28

There was no achievement involved in having your first computing experience be Unix instead of Windows. There is nothing to be proud of.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Proud?
by fsckit on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:40 UTC in reply to "Proud?"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Of course there is. I, myself, had XENIX on my first computer and yes I take some pride in the fact that I had to actually RTFM and learn to use a computer rather than the point,click,pray approach most people are forced into when starting with Windows.

Edited 2006-10-23 15:46

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Proud?
by Bending Unit on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Proud?"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

No it isn't. I loathe that kind of elitism.

Edited 2006-10-23 15:45

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Proud?
by fsckit on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proud?"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

That is not elitism. Please learn what the word means before mindlessly spitting it at people. I'll give you some extra help on this one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitism

Reply Score: 4

So choose different words
by KenJackson on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proud?"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Fsckit, your point is obvious but some are getting wrapped up in the particular word you used. It would be better to say that you are very pleased rather than proud.

According to definition 2, it actually could be called elitism. Consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group. The group would be those who used Unix before Windows.

I envy you. From about '86 to '02 I always had the sensation that I was missing out on the true computer experience because I had almost no Unix access. I finally made the switch to Linux in '02.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Proud?
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 24th Oct 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proud?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

No elitism, just attitudes of affected superiority.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Proud?
by backdoc on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proud?"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

I think what he is trying to say that learning the 'hard way' is a good experience because you are forced to understand more. That extra experience pays dividends later. It's a rough way to start, but like it or not, you get an edge because of it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Proud?
by Lambda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Proud?"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

Of course there is. I, myself, had XENIX on my first computer and yes I take some pride in the fact that I had to actually RTFM and learn to use a computer rather than the point,click,pray approach most prople are forced into when starting with Windows.

If you're going to go down that path then I suggest you have nothing to be proud of. After all, you didn't write the Xenix kernel, you didn't write the compiler. You're just another user, despite any false pride because you typed some words in a terminal instead of pointing and clicking.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Proud?
by CPUGuy on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Proud?"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

So you are proud that you couldn't figure out how to use a computer on your own, and had to use a manual?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Proud?
by fsckit on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proud?"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

I'm not getting the connection. How does reading the manual != learning on your own?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Proud?
by r_a_trip on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proud?"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

How does reading the manual != learning on your own?

I'm not sure, but most people seem to think that computers need to be simpler than toasters and that a chimpanzee should be able to use one.

Learning how to use a computer to it's fullest potential is frowned upon, because it shatters the myth that pointing and clicking is more than enough to reach that potential.

People don't like to be outclassed, but geeks show them otherwise. Deep down they hate the geeky kid who cleans up after their malware infected mess. They know they can't get by with just clicking and that they are dependent on the ones who know more than just click.

So any signs of elevated skill level will bring out hostility.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[5]: Proud?
by Lambda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Proud?"
RE[6]: Proud?
by maxmg on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Proud?"
maxmg Member since:
2006-02-26

Yes, it is a shame that you don't have to write a bash/awk/sed script to run your TV/VCR/DVD/Microwave.

Not a very good analogy, unless you're TV/VCR etc happens to have precisely the same functionality as your computer, as well as liability. Not that they asked for this level of CLI interaction. They just said that it shouldn't be 'just point and click' without expectation to spend time learning how the system works. A perfectly reasonable comment. Why did my phone come with more literature than my laptop?

Deep down they're laughing at geeks who don't have the ability to understand that most people think of a computer as a tool, and nothing more.

and what's wrong with expecting people to learn how to use their tools safely and efficiently? To risk misrepresenting you as much as you're misrepresenting the person to whom that was addressed: should we be let free on the roads in cars without lessons or supervision?

Edited 2006-10-23 17:03

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Proud?
by Lambda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Proud?"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

Not a very good analogy, unless you're TV/VCR etc happens to have precisely the same functionality as your computer, as well as liability. Not that they asked for this level of CLI interaction. They just said that it shouldn't be 'just point and click' without expectation to spend time learning how the system works. A perfectly reasonable comment. Why did my phone come with more literature than my laptop?

Using the command line and RTFM'ng doesn't teach you how the system works.

and what's wrong with expecting people to learn how to use their tools safely and efficiently? To risk misrepresenting you as much as you're misrepresenting the person to whom that was addressed: should we be let free on the roads in cars without lessons or supervision?

Wow, a car analogy - haven't heard one of those before. Please tell me the last time that someone was killed because they didn't have lessons or supervision on their desktop

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Proud?
by ma_d on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Proud?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You're exaggerating every argument anyone makes. They say reading the manual is great and everyone should do it because it aids learning.
Then you say that people shouldn't have to use awk/sed: Where did that come from? Graphics designers likely read the manual or take a class to become proficient with a program like photoshop, is that a bad thing? Or is it beneficial that they learn the power of the program by having someone tell them; instead of hacking it out like they're writing a missing manual.

It seems to me you're setting up a straw man.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Proud?
by Lambda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Proud?"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

You're exaggerating every argument anyone makes. They say reading the manual is great and everyone should do it because it aids learning.

Great, then they should pick up a book on the linux kernel and C programming because it aids in learning and "knowing your system". The turtles going down don't stop at a bash prompt.

It seems to me you're setting up a straw man.

No, I'm just past the young-geek phase, whose self-esteem is dependant on maneuvering around a bash prompt.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Proud?
by jwwf on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proud?"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

So you are proud that you couldn't figure out how to use a computer on your own, and had to use a manual?

Don't sound like a fool. If you never make the first step of "admitting you have a problem" you will never be anything more than just another user for whom the machine works by magic. RTFM is the most important skill a computer user can learn.

edit: forgot to quote.

Edited 2006-10-23 16:17

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Proud?
by Lambda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proud?"
RE[5]: Proud?
by lpetrazickis on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Proud?"
lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

No, you are just apathetic. To use software, all you need is your intelligence. To use software well, you need to consult with the wisdom of others. Whether your interests lie in that direction is a different matter.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Proud?
by Lambda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Proud?"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

No, you are just apathetic. To use software, all you need is your intelligence. To use software well, you need to consult with the wisdom of others. Whether your interests lie in that direction is a different matter.

Wisdom of others? If I need a freaking oracle or FM to use a browser then it's crap software. I expect to RTFM (or hyperspec) if I'm programming in Common Lisp.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Proud?
by ma_d on Tue 24th Oct 2006 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Proud?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

See, this is just ridiculous. You choose a piece of software that's considered largely universal (everyone knows about it) and saying you don't need a manual for it.

Of course you don't, you've used it for years. But what if you didn't know what a URL was? What if "http" wasn't part of your vocabulary (even though you, the typical user, don't know what it means). People like this exist. They can either have someone tell them these things, or they can read it in some piece of literature.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Proud?
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Proud?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course there is. I, myself, had XENIX on my first computer and yes I take some pride in the fact that I had to actually RTFM and learn to use a computer rather than the point,click,pray approach most people are forced into when starting with Windows.

Taking in pride in being *able* to learn to use the software is something I can understand. But why take pride in the fact that you *had* to learn? An accomplishments are something to take pride in, circumstances are not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Proud?
by chemical_scum on Tue 24th Oct 2006 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Proud?"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

I, myself, had XENIX on my first computer

My first work computer in 1975 had DEC RT-11 as its operating system. My first home computer bought seven years later ran CP/M (Gary Kildall who wrote CP/M had originally worked on the DEC operating systems). Great not to have started with MS eh?

I didn't get to Unix (SunOS 3 and an early AIX) until 14 years after starting with DEC operating systems. I only wish I had got to Unix systems earlier. I use Ubuntu at home now, it just works.

Edited 2006-10-24 02:15

Reply Score: 1

Overdone
by Meor on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:33 UTC
Meor
Member since:
2006-09-29

Your style of article, "Section an identical Windows and Unix experience and point out the negatives for windows and positives for Unix", never has, and never will convince people to use Unices over Windows. People want a computer experience to be seamless, intuitive, and simple; unix has none of these qualities.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Overdone
by henrikmk on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:35 UTC in reply to "Overdone"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

People want a computer experience to be seamless, intuitive, and simple; unix has none of these qualities.

So what about MacOSX?

Edited 2006-10-23 15:36

Reply Score: 5

RE: Overdone
by Ford Prefect on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:04 UTC in reply to "Overdone"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

People want a computer experience to be seamless, intuitive, and simple; Windows has none of these qualities.


(write a stupid comment and get a stupid answer)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Overdone
by linux-it on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Overdone"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

"people want a computer experience to be seamless, intuitive and simple" -- I classify windows to be beginners-friendly, not user friendly.

Take a sweex USB/serial converter.

Windows:

1) install hardware.
2) tell windows you have a driver as windows doesn't understand the well known pl2303.
3) install driver
4) reboot, as the software tells us so.
5) see that the device doesn't work, install usb to serial software
6) reboot as the s/w tells us so.
7) see that it doesn't work. take out the plug, reinsert
8) yes we have our driver.

linux:

1) plug in the device.


same story for a lot of cameras, storage devices, mp3 players......

Edited 2006-10-23 16:54

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Overdone
by Tom K on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overdone"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

You're kindly leaving out the multitudes of hardware where the story goes like this:

Windows:

1) Plug in the device.

Linux:

1) Plug in the device.
2) dmesg
3) See it wasn't detected.
4) Break out Google.
5) Read forum posts for 30 minutes.
6) Find a reference to an obscure HOWTO on some guy's site Apache index listing.
7) Follow the 3-year-old HOWTO, using trial and error.
8) Finally get the device working at 11 PM after buying it at noon.
9) Feel a sense of smug satisfaction that you are, after all, using the superior operating system.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Overdone
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Overdone"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Funny. When I try to install my scanner and printer on Win/OSX,it requires hours and hours of work, since HP and Canon's drivers for my equipment are borked for OSX (as in, they won't install, forcing me to download 3rd party software), and for Windows they just require a massive download and tedious installation procedure, as well as an uninstallation procedure, since a lot of pointless utilities are installed alongside the drivers (and you can't opt out).

On Ubuntu, I can plug them both in, and they just work.

Point: it depends on what hardware you are talking about. The biggest problem with Linux hardware today is i.e. changing videocards. In that respect, Linux is still stuck in the stone age.

Edited 2006-10-23 19:09

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Overdone
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Overdone"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Depends on the linux distribution. In Fedora it's typical a matter of plugging in the card and start, and it will be detected automatically.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Overdone
by helf on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Overdone"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

uh, um, WHY do people still bring these lame-ass arguements?

Windows:
1) Plug in device.
2) Windows doesnt recognize device
3) Pop in Driver CD
4) Install drivers
5) Reboot
6) Device conflicts with another device (haha, just kidding)... ^H^H^H^H^H^H^HH^H the device works

Linux:

Pretty much the same as with windows, cept the chances of it being recognized are higher.

This isnt 1995 anymore, Linux has come a loooong way. If you have a pc thats 5 year sold or newer, then most likely, most of your hardware will be seen on installation. If you have some obscure piece of hardware then it can get a bit interesting, but thats the SAME problem windows has.

Before I get flamed for being biased, I use windows XP on my main tower and Debian on my ghetto piddle tower.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Overdone
by MacTO on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Overdone"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

You wouldn't go into an Apple store expecting everything to work on your Windows box. You wouldn't go into a PC retailer and expect everything to work on your Macintosh. Why would you go into either one and expect everything to work under Linux.

I did my research before buying a Linux box, and every bit of hardware works once it is booted off a Linux installer or live CD. I don't need to use dmesg, Google, forums, mailing lists, how-tos, or the midnight oil just to get things working. In fact, I barely even had to touch Google in order to do the research.

Now if only I could say the same thing about Windows, which can hardly be considered as stable unless I download the latest drivers from ATI.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Overdone
by Tom K on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Overdone"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed, yet you entirely missed the point.

The point was the process one has to take when a piece of hardware DOESN'T just work out of the box in Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Overdone
by MacTO on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Overdone"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

You can expect to have that sort of trouble with poorly supported hardware on any operating system. For example, I have a LocalTalk printer. It works very well under Mac OS X and it works fairly well under Linux. Unless I buy third party software, it will not work in Windows XP. It will work under Windows NT 4 Server and Windows 2000 Professional, but you will have to dig rather deeply into Microsoft's documentation just to figure out how to set it up. But it would be silly of me to blame Microsoft or their operating system simply because it is difficult to setup a printer that they were not even interested in supporting.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Overdone
by xeniast on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:05 UTC in reply to "Overdone"
xeniast Member since:
2006-02-04

People want a computer experience to be seamless, intuitive, and simple; unix has none of these qualities.

Clearly you are not familiar with Mac OSX !

It is Seamless, intuitive and simple to use.

and it is the most secure Unix there is BSD

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Overdone
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Overdone"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Mac OS X isn't really Unix, nor BSD. It's Unix- and BSD-like. But that's all.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Overdone
by xeniast on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overdone"
xeniast Member since:
2006-02-04

Mac OS X isn't really Unix, nor BSD. It's Unix- and BSD-like. But that's all.

Split hairs

Leopard will be POSIX

BSD is a flavor of Unix

but 3.5>V

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Overdone
by Tom K on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Overdone"
RE[2]: Overdone
by Edward on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:45 UTC in reply to "Overdone"
Edward Member since:
2005-09-17

PC-BSD is great for ease of use, security, & stablety

Reply Score: 2

RE: Overdone
by solidsnake on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 18:12 UTC in reply to "Overdone"
solidsnake Member since:
2006-06-04

HELLO!! MacOSX!! PC-BSD!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Overdone
by Anonymous Penguin on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:43 UTC in reply to "Overdone"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Mac OS X! SUSE! Linspire/Freespire! Xandros! PC-BSD! Many more...

Reply Score: 1

Windows license
by cmost on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 15:45 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Windows has come a long way since the days of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups. Likewise, so have *NIX based operating systems. My biggest problem with Windows remains its uber restrictive licensing. This was bad enough in previous iterations but now we have to contend with Windows Genuine Advantage (and its bigger, scarier brother lurking in Vista.) While I never advocate software piracy, I do advocate trust in your customer and the giving of some leeway. One should never be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Reply Score: 3

Hmm
by Tomasz Dominikowski on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:00 UTC
Tomasz Dominikowski
Member since:
2005-08-08

On page two, the abbreviation of a Single Point of Failure is SPF, not an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). I found that "typo" funny ;) Needs to be fixed though. Reading on...

Edited 2006-10-23 16:01

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm
by fsckit on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:03 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Actually SPF is 'sender policy framework". Personally I think people should stop abbreviating things that were never meant to be abbreviated and just speak english.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm
by drewunwired on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
drewunwired Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally I think people should stop abbreviating things that were never meant to be abbreviated and just speak english.
Have you ever done work with US Military contracts?

I swear they make the acronyms then come up with something that loosely fits after the fact. For the given example, most of the contracts I've seen use SPoF so they can say "ess-pawf" (yes, in that accent).

Reply Score: 2

Nice article
by PotajiTo on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:05 UTC
PotajiTo
Member since:
2006-10-23

Very nice article, the only problem is that is a bit late to review WinXP.
The only part I dont agree is the maintenace thing. I've just updated winxp once, when I installed the OS. I run no antivirus (I just dont use IE and Im behind a router).
And you can change the position of the windows minimize buttons with "windows blinds".

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice article
by Adam S on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:08 UTC in reply to "Nice article"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I run no antivirus (I just dont use IE and Im behind a router).

That's the silliest rationale I've ever heard. Do you use email? Have you EVER allowed an ActiveX control to run? Do you have Java installed? Do you ever run applications you've downloaded from the internet?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice article
by PotajiTo on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice article"
PotajiTo Member since:
2006-10-23

Do you use email? Yes, just take care, is not that hard.
Have you EVER allowed an ActiveX control to run? Why I should do that?
Do you have Java installed? Not a problem with it yet.
Do you ever run applications you've downloaded from the internet? I try to avoid the freepornxxx.exe's and the like.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Nice article
by Adam S on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice article"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

OK, good luck with that.

Why you'd want to try to outrun virii that DO exist vs. protect yourself is beyond my comprehension.

Think of using an A/V app like using a condem. You don't HAVE to, but why risk it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice article
by r_a_trip on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Think of using an A/V app like using a condem.

AV is NOT like a condom. Condoms prevent infections from the get go.

AV is more like antibiotics. For AV to be effective you already need to have the virus active in your memory. AV can't fight something that isn't already there.

It would be nice if something like a condom could be written for OSes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Nice article
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice article"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You're forgetting On-Access scanners. They prevent infection (to some extent). Combine with a firewall and something like Lavasoft Adaware, and of you go.

My machine is clean, and I have javascript turned on, running activeX plugins (only after being prompted and only on sites I trust) and a lot more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice article
by killerbyte on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
killerbyte Member since:
2006-02-19

If only an AV were so effective as a condom... The right prevention technique is common sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice article
by yak8998 on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

because it feels better without

sorry, i had to

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice article
by miscz on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice article"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

You will be very surprised and angry when some worm slips through router, firewall and Windows defenses, it happens. I was like this until msblast, sasser and similar made my computer a self-restarting piece of machinery. Then I switched to Linux. I still have to fix my parent's computer with Windows XP even though it has automatic updates enabled, it's behind router, has a firewall and antivirus app (and after some education my father uses p2p apps to download porn ;) ).

Edited 2006-10-23 16:50

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice article
by PotajiTo on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
PotajiTo Member since:
2006-10-23

If msblast "slipped" trough your hardware router you obviusly had something bad configrated on it.
I know windows can be full of viruses of 10 minutes if you dont take care, but if you DO take care, it doenst have to.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Nice article
by miscz on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice article"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

You are right, I logged into that router and it seems that someone enabled DMZ for my parent's computer IP (I'll have to ask them next time I'm at home ;) ). I was wondering why did that previous infection happen...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice article
by brewin on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice article"
brewin Member since:
2005-06-30

"That's the silliest rationale I've ever heard. Do you use email? Have you EVER allowed an ActiveX control to run? Do you have Java installed? Do you ever run applications you've downloaded from the internet?"

Don't open attachments in emails. Don't install ActiveX controls from untrustworthy sites. Disable Java applets. Don't download apps from P2P networks. Keep your system updated.

These simple rules coupled with Firefox and a firewall means you won't need an antivirus.

Edited 2006-10-23 16:53

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Nice article
by linux-it on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice article"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

"These simple rules coupled with Firefox and a firewall means you won't need an antivirus."

and still we have to fix those machines..... how come ?

I know that this is a good base, but be aware of the flakey part that runs under your fingers, Windows.

I have seen those interesting ads (on this site btw) that I know not to touch but people do and they get infected quickly. We've done some studies on ow fast you can be infected and what it takes to get rid of infections. YOu don't really want that on your own system.

We use VMware and roll back the image if we cannot fix a known problem. Most of us don't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice article
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The most flakey part is the lack of common sense.

Avoid certain sites and certain applications downloadable through p2p-networks.

That'll do quite a trick.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Nice article
by linux-it on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice article"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

yes I know but the real life example is that people don't. So the trick doesn't work for most.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice article
by Adam S on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice article"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Boy, I can't believe this is a site filled with supposed techies. Good luck with your method.

In the meantime, your computer is *still* vulnerable dude! Just hoping a virus never lands on your PC is completely naive and absolutely laughable. Being behind a router and not using IE is NOT a suitable replacement for AV software.

[i][sarcasm]
You're perfectly safe, just never open any attachment in email, install any ActiveX control, use a java applet, download from p2p.

Also, never use a torrent, never use an ipod (they just shipped with Windows viruses), never use a USB thumb drive that has touched another network or computer, never install a database server or an app that opens ports for remote connection. In fact, don't use your computer for anything meaningful at all. Better yet, just shut your PC off and it's perfectly safe!
[/sarcasm]

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice article
by killerbyte on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
killerbyte Member since:
2006-02-19

...And AV Software is not a guarantee of security. If it's Norton, you might even get some exclusive trojans just for Symantec.
I work with several AV products, and you'll be surprise about how a machine with zero problems and zero cleaning events can be infected. If you think you're protected by using an antivirus, good luck for you. You'll need it.

Btw... My windows installation is almost 2 years old, without antivirus. And without incidents.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Nice article
by brewin on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
brewin Member since:
2005-06-30

"In the meantime, your computer is *still* vulnerable dude! Just hoping a virus never lands on your PC is completely naive and absolutely laughable."

I've been "hoping" that a virus never lands on my PC(s) for many years and, guess what, it never has. The only viruses I've come in contact with were those on other people's machines that I was hired to remove.

Any knowledgeable and responsible computer user can stay away from viruses. I challenge you to uninstall your antivirus, and if you follow the rules I gave in my original post (which everyone should do anyway), you'll never get a virus, period.

But anyway, I know I can't convince you that it's not needed and you can't convince me that it is, so there's no reason to debate it...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Nice article
by Adam S on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice article"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Look, I'm not trying to convince you AV protection is needed, I just think it's silly and reckless not to have it installed on Windows when it's there, low level, and free. I hope you don't get a virus, but why you'd rely on yourself to never slip up rather than simply installing some unobtrusive app like AVG Free to guard your box is beyond me. It just seems pointless to NOT run AV software.

Not getting a virus is easy if you remove all the functionality of a PC, which you're advocating, if I'm reading your responses right. You've eliminated quite a bit of what I do on a computer with your anti-virus rules. 99% of the time, they are safe actions, and the rest of the time, I'd have AV software to protect me.

That said, I use a Mac, so there's no challenge to uninstall AV necessary. My platform isn't at risk, even when I do all the things you have to avoid.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nice article
by w-ber on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice article"
w-ber Member since:
2005-08-21

It's simple: If you don't have a computer, you don't have a problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice article
by siki_miki on Tue 24th Oct 2006 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice article"
siki_miki Member since:
2006-01-17

Using Firefox(but patched iexplorer is also fine), regularly patching vulnerabilities in XP, not running executable attachments, and generally taking care not to execute suspicious stuff is enough to stay clean. To allow antivirus to crawl your system each time you run an exe file, is not really the best solution

And even if you get infected by some really nasty one, you can download a trial and clean it up, or find instructions to remove it manually. I had to do this a few times (e.g. MS-Blaster got removed this way).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice article
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:09 UTC in reply to "Nice article"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You haven't updated XP since it was installed?

In that case I hope you installed XP within the last week - if not I'll recommend you perform a system check.

Reply Score: 2

What is the point of this?
by korpenkraxar on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:12 UTC
korpenkraxar
Member since:
2005-09-10

Writing a very personal review, stressing your own views on and needs for computing in this comparative way is a bit pointless - sure you stress your subjective take on the matter, but then it is really not applicable to anyone else either. I would have preferred a review focused on FreeBSD, or perhaps a comparison between FreeBSD and Linux instead.

I've run Linux systems for seven or so years, and enjoy the benefits of a UNIX-like OS in both private and professional settings. I too can not stand using Windows anymore. But it doesn't matter how much I talk about the pros of *nix, many cons are usually so technical or insurmountable for non-techies that there is no point in doing these comparisons. Why would someone who have learnt to control spyware be interested in switching to get rid of spyware?

From what I have seen, it takes genuine motivation, curiosity and creativity from the switcher to stand relearning how an OS can behave and use a *nix OS. What you can do is simply to support the n00b while she has decided to take her first few baby steps and give suggestions tuned to her interest - throw Sabayon disks with 3D game demos at gamers, dyne:bolic disks at media artists and KnoppMyth disks at movie buffs. Show something ubercool, and let them come to you when they feel ready trying it out themselves.

Reply Score: 2

web developer contra mac...
by fryke on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:16 UTC
fryke
Member since:
2005-07-06

You say in the article: "In many cases, it is the right tool for the job. If I was a web developer on a tight budget, I'd rather use a low-end PC to run Flash and Dreamweaver on Windows instead of spending much more on a low-end Mac for the same reason."

Yet I find it hard to believe that a web developer earning his money on such projects would really want to use an inferior tool just because of maybe 200 USD. If you compare the overall pricing of buying the computer, the display and not to forget the most expensive part of the equation, the _software_... You'll need Dreamweaver, Flash, Photoshop etc.? And then buy a 399 USD PC to use it on? Come on. If you spend a couple of thousand dollars on equipment, anyway, and buy software that brings computers to its knees, you'll want a decent computer, not some plasticky fall-apart-when-i-look-at-it piece of sh*t.

Reply Score: 1

v Second worse article ever
by morglum666 on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:29 UTC
and still....
by linux-it on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 16:44 UTC
linux-it
Member since:
2006-07-13

it's recognizable.

The author just told his personal story about having to install hist workstation together with the tools he needed to do his work.

In our hearts we all know thta installing windows can be a battle. Yes, of course, there are laptops that have a CD at hand that installs everything. People seem to forget that those ISO's are produced by the maufacturer and you know what ? They have taken quite some time to get all the drivers, tools, whatever before they could press the CDs.

And still you have that basic windows machine, that machine without a compiler. Without a reasonable text editor (what, you mumbled notepad, wordpad ?), or even without a reasonable office suite.

If I would have to make my laptop (Amilo D1840W) a windows machine, it would take experts hours and hours. Installing SUSE 10.1 is putting in a DVD, start the thing, select a few things and then wait. That's it ! No more waiting, endless rebooting.

And don't forget what happens if you now have your XP harddrive ready and move it to another system. STOP_error galore and MS will tell you on the phone to reinstall. Oh well. All the people bitching here that the author is wrong: write your own review, or better yet, try it yourself before you start bashing around....

Reply Score: 4

Interesting twist but
by renox on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:10 UTC
renox
Member since:
2005-07-06

there was an elementary mistake which shocked me: the part about the virus scanner reading .ogg file, the author say this isn't necessary because they are not executables.
This is quite naive..
There have been quite a few case of error in decoders where specially crafted JPEG or other format would be used to trigger a buffer overflow in the player.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting twist but
by wirespot on Tue 24th Oct 2006 09:40 UTC in reply to "Interesting twist but"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

So antivirus software is supposed to detect what are essentially format errors in data files now? Why, because certain particular applications using those files are badly written and will fall victim to bugs which in turn become security problems? How about fixing the bad app and be done with it?

You can see I hope why AV is considered bloated, and AV scanning itself a bad security practice. Where does it stop? It doesn't. Blacklists grow and grow and add more and more stuff and never take it out, because you can bet that once Symantec added that file format check for JPEG's they will keep on doing so forever in all future editions. Instead of fixing some simple matters once.

Reply Score: 1

v Not to bash or anything but...
by ObscuredCelery on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:16 UTC
No surprises
by killerbyte on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:23 UTC
killerbyte
Member since:
2006-02-19

While the author tries to somewhat keep a fair view of his personal experience, I really don't think it is a fair assessment of windows xp.

It's important to keep in mind that windows xp is, after all, a 2001 product. It isn't supposed to magically find new drivers to newer hardware.
- The installer is easier and simpler to use than previous versions (the recurring NT nightmare of incompetent technicians). Also, unattended installation is also somewhat easier, and broadly used. In fact, the installation process is so simple that any average IQ newbie could install it. Try that with 2001's unixes.

- The driver model is quite more advanced than the credit its given. There are a ton of drivers that usually works provided with the base installation, and new drivers can be installed, made active and even versioned (with the driver rollback feature) whithout rebooting. There are several exceptions, such as AGP drivers and things like that. Those exceptions also exist on unix - there are some situations when kernel recompiling is required.

- The luna interface is downright ugly. With the windows classic, you get an uncluttered desktop and actually usable space even at 800x600 (in 2001 17" and bigger monitors weren't that common), and you could actually change the resolution, refresh rate, etc without needing to edit some crazy files and restart the GUI server. Also, you get some very nice and useful fonts and decent AA even on low dpi settings.

- The registry is a PITA, but it isn't supposed to be messed with except for advanced users. My guess is 98% of windows users doesn't need to be messing around the registry (manually or with tweaking tools). The registry is a point of failure, but I had zero problems with windows xp - on several hundred machines. Something has definitely improved.

- While I agree that the modularity isn't windows strong point, I also think it was never meant to be. Windows is designed as a desktop product (since 1.0), so some modularity would be helpful but its not a key issue. There are other products more appropriate to those kind of needs.

- XP comes with some crappy ZIP support. It's not ideal, but there are several options, like 7ZIP. My guess is if MS tried to bundle that kind of software with the operating system, they'd be sued (just like they were sued because of IE). Also, dvd playback and some sound formats require extra drivers. AFAIK, just like fedora. The VB6 runtime problem its not a problem - blame the software maker, it should had embedded the runtime on the installer.

- The Add/Remove programs feature is as good as the program uninstaller you're trying to remove. AFAIK, on *nix is common practice not to remove files created by the application, so if you uninstall MySQL, you'd still have the database files on disk.

- I agree that a clean windows installation isn't very useful. But then again, MS has a whole line of software products to fill that gap - and their objective is to make money with software. There are a wide range of free software options, probably more than you get using OSX.

- A 2001 browser is a quite bad browser, even ignoring the security holes. Try running Netscape 7 and you'll see.

- The lack of a decent CLI can be a problem for advanced users - but you can do more than running command.com compatible batch files. You get a somewhat more funcional (and lethal) tool, Windows Scripting Host, that allows execution of VBS scripts. We all know how that worked for windows, so imagine if you got some bash and/or perl on the base system. Also, most users never need to use the command line - you can actually work without needing it, just like on MacOS.

- If you're running windows as a server, you might want to have a second read at the EULA. There are several limitations on using windows XP as a server. Yes, you'd be way better with a samba server - and its quite faster, too. On the VGA subject, AFAIK, many linux distros by default don't allow headless install (I think it's needed a custom kernel, but I can be wrong), and many of them will fail when you try to use some older adapters, like Hercules or CGA adapters, perfectly usable for text terminals. About the pentium@233, your problem is RAM. Windows is quite demanding, not only because of the GUI, but because it's designed to be used on newer machines. Comparing it to FreeBSD is unfair - unless you install X+KDE or similar and use it as a desktop.
On a 166MHz machine you can surf the web. I wouldn't recommend installing SP2, but if you have at least 128Mb of ram it won't be a total nightmare. And yes, I've tried it.

- The multiuser support is somewhat rethorical, but VNC is not multiuser. You can actually have several people logged in on the computer, but only 1 of them using it. Once again, if you want it, you'll have to buy a new version of windows (2003) and pay some terminal services licenses (which btw are quite expensive). If unix works for you, you probably are better of with freeNX and your unix of choice.

- Why sould MS be eager to provide filesystem support to 3rd party filesystems that eventually wouln't support some features such as ACL's and encryption when users needing those kind of features are an exception? And why should I want to use a journaling filesystem on a pen drive? It could be useful, yes, but not without its cost.

- ClamWin is not an "antivirus" because it offers no realtime protection. Its a command-line virus scanner, and a quite slow one. The OGG files might not be executable, but may contain exploits to some players. Not that long ago, there was a problem with jpeg handling. Those kind of vulnerabilities also appear seldom on unixes. Also, you try to execute an ogg file just as easily as on unix.

- Believe it or not, the mainstream windows user is that dumb - some people actually deleted parts of the operating system because it was using space or because some files dind't have an icon. Also, you can configure start menu so it won't show "My computer" as an explorer view, but as a cascaded menu - so to see how much space is available you'd need to go to properties. It is also very common people that can't understand storage units, so if they see 26Mb free on the system drive they don't know if its little or much.

Windows XP has some major flaws (being the most evident the poor security record), but advanced users can skip some hassle like antivirus, anti-spyware stuff and defragmentation. Its easy not to catch viruses and spyware if you know what you're doing. Defragmentation isn't that useful if you keep about 20% of the drive space free.
I do agree that people should use what they find more suitable for them, and what makes them more comfortable. In my case, its windows on the desktops and BSD on the servers. You shouldn't try to run Windows XP and expect it to be like an unix. It's not. Its nor better or worse - its different.

Reply Score: 5

RE: No surprises
by unapersson on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 21:03 UTC in reply to "No surprises"
unapersson Member since:
2005-07-19

It's important to keep in mind that windows xp is, after all, a 2001 product. It isn't supposed to magically find new drivers to newer hardware.

It's also important to keep in mind that Microsoft decided that a big release every five years or so was a better approach than smaller incremental releases. As of today, WinXP is still the latest supported version of Windows that I'd get if I bought a new PC. So you could almost say that lack of support for newer hardware was a design decision.

Try that with 2001's unixes.

Here you go: http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/01/Mandrake_71.pdf

That's the version of Linux I started with. Nice graphical installer.

While I agree that the modularity isn't windows strong point, I also think it was never meant to be. Windows is designed as a desktop product (since 1.0),

It's also a server product and that's where it's lack of modularity can hurt. It sounds like they might be doing something about that though.

The Add/Remove programs feature is as good as the program uninstaller you're trying to remove.

The menu choices are the worst part, I'm having to constantly fight the menus to get them in a usable state. You'd think they'd enforce some kind of standard of usability. Will this be coming with Vista? Anyone know?

A 2001 browser is a quite bad browser, even ignoring the security holes. Try running Netscape 7 and you'll see.

It still has better standards support than IE7. That was when browsers started getting good. I preferred Mozilla to Netscape 7 at that time and when it came to CSS support it was second to none.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No surprises
by killerbyte on Tue 24th Oct 2006 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE: No surprises"
killerbyte Member since:
2006-02-19

Actually, most of 2001 linux distros didn't run on my 2001 computer... And yes, it was fully "compatible" with linux.
Mandrake and Nice on the same sentence can't really make sense, but that's ok.

And btw, windows XP is NOT a server product. And I didn't understood why something working as a server has to be modular. There are some cases, yes, but then again there are some other products. When you buy a server appliance, is it modular? Generally no. When you buy a router, is it modular? Well, if you spend some big bucks on top-of-the-line models, yes, maybe. When you buy a cellphone, is it modular? I don't think so - software is seen as a part of the base package. And while you may argue that software and hardware are different business, the main channel of distribution of windows xp is via OEM licensing - making the software a part of the base package.

About Add/Remove, yes, I've had some problems, most of them with shitty or badly tested installers. I didn't understand what you mean by "usability", but I guess it could be better.

Actually Netscape 7 is from 2002, not 2001. You might have missed that. And its based on Mozilla 1.01, so the actual rendering engine is quite similar. You may prefer whatever you like, but NS7 and Mozilla 1.0 wheren't that good compared to IE - not even on CSS support.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No surprises
by unapersson on Tue 24th Oct 2006 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No surprises"
unapersson Member since:
2005-07-19

Actually, most of 2001 linux distros didn't run on my 2001 computer... And yes, it was fully "compatible" with linux.

It did on mine, but you sentence doesn't make logical sense. How can it be fully compatible and not work?

Mandrake and Nice on the same sentence can't really make sense, but that's ok.

Yes, horses for courses.

And btw, windows XP is NOT a server product. And I didn't understood why something working as a server has to be modular.

I know, in my head I was thinking of Win 2000/2003 when I was raising server issues. Those are the ones I'm familiar with using.

About Add/Remove, yes, I've had some problems, most of them with shitty or badly tested installers. I didn't understand what you mean by "usability", but I guess it could be better.

In terms of programs being installed by company on the menu rather than functionality. That and the uninstall programs cluttering up the menu.

Actually Netscape 7 is from 2002, not 2001. You might have missed that. And its based on Mozilla 1.01, so the actual rendering engine is quite similar. You may prefer whatever you like, but NS7 and Mozilla 1.0 wheren't that good compared to IE - not even on CSS support.

I've been on the cliff face of browser CSS support for years, and IE6 has always been bad even compared to very early versions of Mozilla. That's one thing Mozilla has always had right and it has always been light years ahead of IE6. Just do a bit of research and you'll find that is the case, IE6 took over from NS4 as the pain in the proverbial for web development.

The fact is though that Mozilla was perfectly usable and available in 2001. It certainly worked fine on my NT4 128MB machine at work. Long before Netscape 7 repackaged it. I'd switched away from IE6 even then, out of necessity, it just wasn't a very good browser to develop with.

Reply Score: 1

Horses for courses
by moleskine on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 17:32 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

This is an interesting and thoughtful article to me. Of course in a way it is self-defeating: no one who wants to run the kind of set-up the author wants (emacs, sed, a host of unix or unix-like tools, etc.) would choose Windows as a platform in the first place. But then the author is perfectly aware of that and is writing something of a "what if ..."

However, the article did remind me of three very useful things. First, just how bare-bones Windows actually is. You get the OS and a very small number of apps and that's the lot for your top dollar. No wonder these folks rake in so much money. Second, if you want to run Windows then you have to run it the Windows way as the OS simply cannot handle any other way (for example, the command console is fanatastically limited). And third, just how old Windows really is. Considering its age, it actually performs pretty darn well and XP is certainly extremely stable in most situations. The let-down is security, of course.

Just my 2 cents, but I run WinXP for games and a bit of light surfing, perhaps. It is very good at both, ime. But for anything else, I run Linux. The author alludes to a huge burden of legacy spaghetti lurking inside Windows. Yes, it will be interesting to see what Microsoft eventually decide to do about this.

Reply Score: 3

Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

Then came the problem of the interface. I'm used to having the Minimize button in the upper left part of my Windows. I simply don't care that Microsoft's UI experts believe most users would prefer it the way it is now, I want to move it, which I can do in just about any X11 window manager, and, as far as I can remember, even on AmigaOS or OS X, with third party tools. I couldn't find a similar option on Windows.
I want the X to be at the top right corner of the screen when the window is maximized. ( http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot1la1.png )
Now I've tried quite a few window managers (at least 11 that I can remember right now) but NONE of them has this FUNDAMENTAL feature. I don't care if some Linux UI "experts" never closes their windows, but I want to be able to close mine.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That's a horrible idea. Windows should be difficult to close, at least difficult enough that doing it accidentally is unlikely. By putting the close button in the corner you make it much more accessible...

I'd say having the minimize in the corner would be a better idea.

In the mean time, you might look into alt+f4, it's easier than moving the mouse.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Eehh..?

Unless you've done something really weird, the X will be in the top right corner in KDE and Gnome and with many different WM's. So it will also be in Windows. The problem is the small gap between the maximize/restore-button and the close-button. It should be twice as large (at the very least) and the distance should be customizable in order to handle large resolutions (1600*1200 on a 17"-monitor).

Reply Score: 1

Invincible Cow Member since:
2006-06-24

Unlike in Windows there's always a 1 pixel border. When there's no border you CAN'T miss it because you can't move the mouse too far.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hmm... Is that with the Luna theme? Because with Classic there is a 2 pixel border on top and a 2 pixel border to the right of the close button. That is - if you have the taskbar in the bottom. Obviously I don't.

And with the right theme you don't have borders at all in Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Invincible Cow Member since:
2006-06-24

Because with Classic there is a 2 pixel border on top and a 2 pixel border to the right of the close button.You're measuring the glyph. I am talking about where I can click. If I click on those two pixels it acts as if the button is clicked.

Reply Score: 1

The registry part
by ronaldst on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:45 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

is where it really shows it's an article to bash Windows. OMG it has a registry!

OSS fundies always make me laugh. Just like Homer does.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The registry part
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:49 UTC in reply to "The registry part"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Even Microsoft has acknowledged that the Registry was a mistake.

That's why we have something today called "Documents and Settings".

From an architectural point of view the Registry is a disaster. A single point of failure, as it was stated.

However, Windows has quite a few nice features, incl. an indexing service for the last 7 years, yielding the users with the knowledge with a tool equivalent to the indexing in SkyOS and BeOS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The registry part
by ronaldst on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE: The registry part"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Even Microsoft has acknowledged that the Registry was a mistake.

The registry problem was fixed long ago. Pointing it out, as a problem, right now is complete stupidity. Too bad the author used it in his/her excuses. Of which they are all very poor.

Of course, from an architectural point of view the registry is a disaster. But the problem is kinda non-existant nowadays. The only problem is that some programs leave small bits of info into the registry. And that is a very minor problem in itself as it won't affect boot performance at all nor consume more memory.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The registry part
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The registry part"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually it isn't solved. At least not if you rely on older software. They can still screw up things, even though Microsoft has reduced the risk greatly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The registry part
by ronaldst on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The registry part"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Which is can occur in what percentage? 0.000000001%? At those odds, I'd say it's pretty much fixed.

I've seen plenty damaged registries. And the damaged HDs and the stubborn people who insist on clean their registry database using obscure software or doing it manually.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The registry part
by siki_miki on Tue 24th Oct 2006 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The registry part"
siki_miki Member since:
2006-01-17

>The registry problem was fixed long ago.

Was it? Difference is now that Microsoft educated many developers not to bloat it much. Remember for example what ICQ IM app did to registry:) But really, I still find registry misteriously growing in size during XP OS lifetime.

Not to mention that pre-SP2 versions of XP often ended-up with a completely corrupted registry blob in case system was too much overclocked (yea, they didn't do any integrity checking, but just assumed cpu/memory operations will always give correct result).

Only with Vista they are introducing stores. Maybe this is the beginning of end for registry. Stores provide isolated (for writing) configuration space for each application, much like config files. Also apps by default aren't allowed anymore to mess with a whole registry, but just the User part of it. IMO linux should take similar direction (like stores) if communities ever decide to go beyond simple text config files.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The registry part
by wirespot on Tue 24th Oct 2006 09:49 UTC in reply to "The registry part"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

is where it really shows it's an article to bash Windows. OMG it has a registry! OSS fundies always make me laugh. Just like Homer does.

You must be easily amused. If you read the article through you'd have seen that the registry is just one remark among many. There is a lot more to it, both good and bad about both Unices and Windows. For instance, it acknowledges the unity of the look and feel of the XP interface when compared to all the graphical toolkits in use on Linux, or the wide diversity and quality of software and drivers available for it. How's that for bashing Windows?

Reply Score: 1

Everyone will switch..
by intangible on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:52 UTC
intangible
Member since:
2005-07-06

Everyone will switch eventually as MS and other Mega-Corps take away more and more rights from "consumers"... That is, unless they get OSS outlawed (which I wouldn't put past them).

Remember, corporations have no requirement to morality, only to profit and they are required to do whatever it takes to make higher profits every quarter; they don't care about you, I, or anyone else.

Reply Score: 3

Consumer rights
by Invincible Cow on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 19:56 UTC
Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

Everyone will switch eventually as MS and other Mega-Corps take away more and more rights from "consumers"
Yes, the Vista licence where you can only install to two computers sequentially is a disaster. I plan to not buying Vista only because of that.

Reply Score: 3

XP comments and whatnot
by cptnapalm on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 20:53 UTC
cptnapalm
Member since:
2006-08-09

Windows is not as intuitive as is commonly stated; some learning is required. Even the "I don't run AV on Windows" guy had to learn what precautions were in order to minimize the risks of not having AV on Windows.

The registry... Oh dear God why...

The "XP came out in 2001 so it should not be expected to have more recent drivers" comment needs to take into account 1) there are more recent versions of XP which are not much better 2) there is no reason why such things could not be included when new discs needed to be made.

Anyone else notice how for more than a decade the next version of Windows is going to solve all problems? I grant XP is far more stable than previous versions, but it took them six years to go from Windows 95 crash fest to XPs relative stability. Vista will, no doubt, be more secure than previous editions. And look how long it has taken them to (presumably) get things working well in that regard. What I'd like to know is why people get hyped for the next Windows when its main feature which people praise is that it does something less terribly than its predecessors.

Reply Score: 1

RE: XP comments and whatnot
by killerbyte on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 21:27 UTC in reply to "XP comments and whatnot"
killerbyte Member since:
2006-02-19

Learning is required with every operating system. Security is a process, and while a more secure operating system might be a good start, it doesn't make everything magically secure.
The fallacy of the unprotected windows connected to the internet makes a good article on some forums, but I find odd that most of the worms on the wild infect code that shouldn't be active in the first place - like file and printer sharing and windows network client.
Learing the quirks of the system is necessary in every operating system - not only on windows.

About recent releases of windows XP - AFAIK, the recent releases include bug and reliability fixes, and rarely one or two improvements. To add new drivers to the codebase costs time and money, and even some manufacturers don't certificate their drivers. Also, the main distribution system for updates is downloading them, so more drivers - more bandwith, and more bigger updates. The thing MS should have done (it seems to be working with Vista) is to activate driver search on their website so the Add New Hardware Wizard could actually search for the driver online.

I find it funny that you put Win95 and XP on the same line. They have almost nothing in common, except some GUI familiarity and application emulation. If you want to compare XP's stability, compare it with NT 3.5 and 4.0.

Its common practice for the software companies to promote the new release of their products as the second coming of christ. If the actual release takes almost as long as the second coming, you may start to be annoyed.
I dind't read any blind evangelism about windows on this thread - but I've read a lot of misconceptions of people that seems to think if you don't run windows, you'll be safe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XP comments and whatnot
by r3m0t on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE: XP comments and whatnot"
r3m0t Member since:
2005-07-25

"I find it funny that you put Win95 and XP on the same line. They have almost nothing in common, except some GUI familiarity and application emulation. If you want to compare XP's stability, compare it with NT 3.5 and 4.0."

Nothing in common except that when you want the latest games, applications or heck, you just go and use somebody else's computer, Windows 95 and XP *were* the Operating System.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: XP comments and whatnot
by killerbyte on Tue 24th Oct 2006 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP comments and whatnot"
killerbyte Member since:
2006-02-19

Actually.. No. When W95 was popular, usually the application executable was different than NT line (NE sig instead of PE), because often the application used a different API (printer enumeration, as an example). For those people who liked pirated games and NT, that was a problem cuz most gamerips available were stripped from NT code.

The fact remains - W95 and NT/XP are different operating systems. The WX line "died" with WindowsME. As an analogy, you probably won't consider IBM's linux offer as a new version of OS/2.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: XP comments and whatnot
by dylansmrjones on Tue 24th Oct 2006 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP comments and whatnot"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, you are not really right.

Windows NT and Windows 9x are two different kernels with the (almost) same API.

Writing applications working for both 9x and NT>=4 was and is a non-issue.

It was mostly on driver level the differences occured. Like the difference between Fedora and Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: XP comments and whatnot
by cptnapalm on Tue 24th Oct 2006 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE: XP comments and whatnot"
cptnapalm Member since:
2006-08-09

As XP is the successor to both 9x and NT, I think that my remark is justifiable, although I should have included NT in the mix as well. NT 4 was more stable than 9x, but it was more limited insofar as what could be done with it; that isn't Microsoft's fault, but that of third party software companies. I did get a load of blue screens with NT 4, though.

I agree wholeheartedly about the lack of magical security .

Considering the relatively low cost involved, considering other companies put out different revisions of their hardware, which I would hazard is much more expensive proportionally, I still think that the lack of newer hardware support in newer shipping copies of XP is a perfectly valid criticism. If they wait several years between major revisions, that is their business, but XP is still their current release and so seeing how it stacks up against other current releases is not unreasonable. If they don't want to include more up to date stuff, again that is their business, but they shouldn't be able to avoid criticism because of it.

As you said, learning is required for any operating system. But my comment was directed towards the "Windows is uber-intuitive" crowd. My inital version actually did carry an "all OSes require learning" bit.

About the fanbase's reaction to the second coming comment I made, it was just something which came to mind, not necessarily prompted by anything in particular.

Reply Score: 1

One Week Back to Windows
by MichaelBiddulph on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 21:40 UTC
MichaelBiddulph
Member since:
2005-07-06

Very enjoyable and tongue-in-cheek. A review with some wit thrown in.

Can relate to some of his problems and can't understand some of the personal reactions. It's a OS FFS, not your mother or girlfriend.

More witty articles please

Reply Score: 1

meh.
by siimo on Tue 24th Oct 2006 06:03 UTC
siimo
Member since:
2006-06-22

1) the new windows powershell is coming to address his shell complaints

2) IE7 is out with tabs

etc etc

Reply Score: 1

Good and bad point for windows
by dvhh on Tue 24th Oct 2006 10:49 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

As sa long time windows user I admit my point can be biased, but as a desktop OS windows XP is a fairly bloated OS, luna desktop theme is ugly, tons of useless services, tons of useless new API.

But the keyword is backward compatibility, win32 programs mostly work the same way since windows 3.1, this require far less work when updating a program, and you can even with some efforts runs DOS program with windows XP. this may seem quite stupid as you don't want anymore to run Apple II programs on your shiny new Mac OSX, but most compagny have been slow at upgrading "mission critical" software, while hardware were much easier to replace.
But with windows you are mostly sure that old software would work on today OS ( not without pain though ), such things is less common with Mac OS as most of API were broken when updating OS9 to OSX (Mac OS classic emulator disapeared with 10.4 ).

The Other Thing that come to mind when thinking to windows is hardware profusion, of course it induce confusion too. But as a closed source widespread desktop system, vendors happily provide drivers, for the better or the worse ( raid drivers are not quite common for mac OSX). Plus Low level Kernel API stability (since windows NT4 )has helped a lot for develloping drivers.

However since NT3.51 windows NT OSes have growed around the NT codebase, bringing more and more "feature" even if XP is in some task fastier than NT4 for example, it introduce itself some bloat.

Even if the author miss some point about windows, he is right about the right tool for the right job, however as windows being widespread as a desktop OS it is a target of choice for malware, and virus aren't as most people think the mostly common malware as today (think of zombies for botnet), that are not new with nix like OSes (good zombies aren't very visible, think rootkit ;) ), but as there is more and more bandwith available, widespread desktop os are a good target for trojan (good administrator don't look into them too often, and bad admin leave admin right to there users wich give most of the security problem).

Reply Score: 1

Very nice review
by twenex on Tue 24th Oct 2006 14:09 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

10 out of 10.

Reply Score: 1