Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Dec 2006 15:24 UTC
Windows Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has written article in which he wonders if your operating system isn't broke, why 'fix' it? If what you're running now works for you, why should you move 'up' to Vista? Joe Wilcox responds to SJVN: "Colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols asks 'If your operating system isn't broke, why 'fix' it?' The very question is the problem. The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place - long after their real usefulness is gone."
Thread beginning with comment 193078
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
End of the line...
by dnstest on Sat 16th Dec 2006 05:51 UTC
dnstest
Member since:
2006-06-11

I really have found Windows to be a decent platform for years. Or is that I haven't found a viable alternative for all that time?

My two favorite releases are without a doubt Windows 2000 (all editions) and Windows Server 2003. The two worst (NT family) in my book are NT 3.x and Windows XP 64-bit Edition (why did they release beta quality software?). NT 4 isn't on my sh*t list because of how much an improvement it was over 3.x. All the DOS-based WinDO(w)S can be tossed in the trash.

MS really lost favor with me after XP started getting torn apart by exploits. I found myself spending more time using Windows Update than Access or Excel. WinXP-64, VS 2005, and the IE situation made me finally give up. I am using what I expect to be my last personal-use Windows machine.

Ubuntu is the first viable alternative I have found, and although it leaves something to be desired, it is free and doesn't spy on you. I even have my Grandma using Ubuntu, and she picked up on using Gnome faster than Windows Explorer. I can't wait to see if more business-oriented software will begin to be ported to Linux. For various reasons, I have to use Windows for business applications.

Reply Score: 1

RE: End of the line...
by tomcat on Sat 16th Dec 2006 06:07 in reply to "End of the line..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

MS really lost favor with me after XP started getting torn apart by exploits. I found myself spending more time using Windows Update than Access or Excel. WinXP-64, VS 2005, and the IE situation made me finally give up. I am using what I expect to be my last personal-use Windows machine.

If you're happy with Ubuntu, then that's great. But, if security is your beef with XP, there are probably a few things that you should know about Vista. The Vista codebase is built on Win2K3 Server (not XP), and Win2K3 has a stellar security record. In addition to having all network services turned OFF by default -- and only turned on individually when specifically enabled -- users run in Limited User Accounts (LUAs). They don't run in Administrator mode anymore. Which means that malware can't modify the registry, overwrite binaries, and start up zombie network processes. The single largest vector for malware has been Internet Explorer in the past. But now, IE runs in a reduced permission mode under Vista that sandboxes the browser experience so, even if malware were to be able to exploit a buffer overflow, it wouldn't do any harm because the security context prevents it.

Reply Parent Score: 1