General Discussions

**daiondoroga** · 08-15-2006, 07:55 AM

I am going nuts! Every time I think I have the best new thing in technology I find that there is something new. Windows is upgrading almost every year. I don't have any idea why I am always behind. I thought of going to Linux but that is also an "ify" for me. The qestions I need awsered are?

Should I switch OS?
Is there a better way to keep up with technology?
Should I stick with the constant upgrades?

If any one has any help on this computer crazy please reply.

**scribby** · 08-15-2006, 08:15 AM

Yeah I feel the same as you, im considering getting a mac as I hear there really good :-)

**Minaki** · 08:43 AM

Windows XP was released in 2001. Vista still isn't even out yet, it's due for release in December I think. That's 5 years, plus you don't need to upgrade to Vista right away. It took people a good year or 2 to take up on XP fully. There's no rush. It's usually good to hold back a while on a new OS anyway, then you can see the issues others are having without having to experience them first hand.

Quote:

Should I switch OS?

Not on the basis of release dates! If you're going to switch OS, research your other options thouroughly before you do. Apple have been releasing new versions of OSX pretty frequently, and you'll probably find distros of Linux the same.

Quote:

Is there a better way to keep up with technology?

Better way than what? You just need to research your options. Vista isn't really an option yet, because it's still not released. Wait for it to come out, then take a look at it and decide if and when you want to upgrade. You might decide it's worth getting right away, or you might feel happier sticking with XP for a couple of years.

Quote:

Should I stick with the constant upgrades?

Whatever you do, there will always be upgrades. Technology moves. If you want to use technology, you have to move with it, to an extent.

**ibbo** · 08-15-2006, 08:42 AM

Should I switch OS?

Depends on your computing skills I suppose (and weather your a gamer or not). Anything you can do in windows you can do in linux.

Days end if you just want to point and click stick with Windows.

MS release patches quite often and I think they always will. People say it gets exploited much more than any other because its the most popular but in relaity its the worst designed of the lot and it allows applications to run in kernel space with admin rights (I do beleive vista is addressing this).

But if its the case that its the most popular then a quick bit of research will show you that most internet servers are *nix based with an average uptime of 100 days. Windows can only average approx 50 (you need to reboot the damned thing after and update (more design flaws).

So nix is the more used server on the internet yet one of the least exploited. Does Marketing come into play here onm behalf of the MS rhetoric.

Is there a better way to keep up with technology?

Depends realy, nix machines require updates too (no reboot though). Of course updates and patches are required from day to day so no matter what you decide your going to have to keep your machine uptodate.

So IMHO if your a gamer stick with windows otherwise drop kick it back to bill along with the invoice and download a free OS what does all windows does (and I hesitate to say it BUT does it better too).

If vista has addressed the monolithic design of windows (which is its biggest downfall) then I would be willing to give it a crack. But the revies I have been getting tell me its not been done and that any copy of vista put on a machine has lasted 24hr max before been removed. (Yes thats the nix community).

AND if you have not guessed I am pro *nix.

Ibbo

**ibbo** · 08-15-2006, 08:45 AM

OSX is FreeBSD and port of *nix.

Its not bad either and can be intergrated into the network much more easily than say a mixture of MS and nix. BUT I do beleive OSX comes with a price tag.

Ibbo

**Minaki** · 08-15-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Anything you can do in windows you can do in linux.

Although not usually as easily. You'll find it hard to find certain software for Linux. I could probably come up with a big long list of things that you couldn't do on Linux that I could do on Windows in a snap. Fireing up VS2005, for example

Quote:

with an average uptime of 100 days. Windows can only average approx 50

"Then there was the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches."
W. I. E. Gates
76% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Quote:

People say it gets exploited much more than any other because its the most popular but in relaity its the worst designed of the lot

This is largely a matter of oppinion, there's no real way to proove it either way, but if you look at it logicly, why would people be looking at exploits for an OS mainly used by admins and power users who are likely to know how to protect their kit over an OS that's far more widely used by newbies and home users who don't know the first thing about computer security? I personally would argue that Windows is incredibly well designed. It's never given me any major problems...

You'll hear a lot of pro-linux arguments (It's become somewhat a fashion to bash Microsoft) but I'd advise doing your own research and making desicions yourself. You might want to read my article on the Windows vs Linux argument:
http://www.minaki.co.uk/_external/linuxvswindows.doc

**ibbo** · 11:02 AM

VS2005 is a native windows app (virtual server?) if so I can grab VMWare and do the same thing

My point been that the likes of open office etc are making MS office redundant and a costly alternative. Sure Open office does not have all the features of MS office but who needs them anyway. I got spreadsheets, word, and a poerpoint type app that all works just like MS office.

So there we have some productivity thats does not cost a penny as opposed to the ridiculous amount it costs (or did cost) to have MS office.

I know plenty of stats do get made up (just like MS press releases) but that hardly changes the fact the the design of MS is monolithic to its core over the modular design of linux.

Which is the best.

Well as usual we are debating this (and its not MS bashing I save that for the amount of money they swindle out of people).

I still put my argument forward.

If apache running on *nix is more common server than IIS on MS then why does the above argument fall over?

Is it because IIS is fundamentaly flawed (what version is it on now) we are still on apache 2, perhaps IIS will have addressed some issues but it cannot totaly negate issues with the underlying OS.

Linux ccan be exploited too I do not deny it BUT i do deny that the popularity of MS is the reason why its exploited more. I state that its due to bad design and ease of exploit not the popularity of it.

Ive been using MS and linux for over ten years now and would like to think I aint talking out of my backside.

My experience has driven me down the nix path. I don't want to read my email and find later in the week that I had 6 spyware programs installed without my knowing. Nor do I wish for my OS to be running in user joe mode but still able to acess the FS in admin mode.

I hate the fact that MS is introducing the WGA and all the other stuff it installs on the sly while pretending to be something else. I want my machine to do what I want and not phone home every time I boot up. I want my HD to be mine and not scanned by my OS for illegal software and such. In essence I want what I want on my machine not what my OS dictates should be on it.

I read your article (not going to comment for fear of starting a war

) but I do suggest to try another distro and give it a whirl. If your in fear of the beast then try Ubuntu.

You can even have mono (c#) development tools too so you wont be put out.

Ibbo

**ADAM Web Design** · 08-15-2006, 11:28 AM

Minaki is dead right.

Most of the exploits related to Windows are caused by two things:

1) The #1 in anything often gets targeted and exploited as much as possible (for those who don't believe that, simply check out the search engine wars and the number of different ways people try to manipulate Google.)

2) Many of the exploits are caused by people who don't know how to configure their systems.

I'm running XP 64-bit edition on this box and haven't had so much as a sniff of a problem with spyware. I haven't had any apps download and install (especially not in my email...I don't know where and how such an asinine idea gets proposed other than possibly through a web-based email client). I don't have problems with people exploiting or accessing my files. I don't have issues with security. And I just don't have issues...period.

As far as the IIS issue is concerned, I have an IIS dedicated server running over 50 sites (I can't remember the exact count), some of which do some hardcore stuff, and it hasn't needed to be rebooted in over 10 months. And even then, it was only because I installed something (which is the only part of ibbo's rant that happens to be true, and yeah that bugs me, but I'll deal). It's easy enough to work with, to configure, and it doesn't cause problems IF configured correctly.

One of the biggest problems with IIS is that the native programming language for it is ASP. One of the biggest problems with ASP is that it is "taught" via tutorials and schools completely incorrectly. Coding for speed and resource usage isn't taught; coding for "it works and it's the most braindead code imaginable" is. Most of the time when I hear the claim about IIS needing to be constantly rebooted in a web server environment, there's at least one badly coded ASP site that's the cause.

There is a buttload of anti-MS sentiment out there, and some of it is justified. Microsoft has put out some garbage products over the years (e.g. FrontPage). But as far as their last few OSes are concerned (2000, XP, XP-64, their server lines), most of the problems that plagued MS in the mid-90s and early part of the millenium have been eliminated.

I don't have a **** problem with the WGA. It doesn't install "on the sly"...they flat out TELL you they're going to do it. The problem is that most people who ***** about it are running a bootlegged copy and don't want to get it shut off, or people who don't know how the hell to read. To those people, I haven't got an ounce of sympathy.

If Linux was half as good as the geeks who support it say it is, then it should be completely destroying MS right now. It should have market share like nobody's business. It should be everywhere. But it's not. Why? Because it's not prepared for mass usage. It's not even close to being prepared for mass usage.

As far as the MAC is concerned, they need to stop spending so much money and time putting out self-absorbed and self-contradictory commercials and start worrying about building something that isn't overpriced and has replaceable components.

**Minaki** · 08-15-2006, 12:26 PM

Wow someone with a brain who knows how to use it

(Could be rephrased as, "Someone with a decent OS and knows how to use it!)
Good post there. You've covered pretty much most of what I was going to write...

FYI, ibbo, I have tried Ubuntu. The graphics issue I was having with Mandrake that I mentioned in my article thankfully didn't surfice with Ubuntu, but it still has the vast majority of flaws that the other distros have.

I'm not going to continue with the OS war argument, but what I will say (going back on topic) is that your first post is vastly oppinionated and where you have stated facts, they can hardly be backed up. That isn't helpfull to the origional question.

**rhysgregory** · 08-17-2006, 07:02 AM

I hear that even windows vista gets the blue screen of death

**stOx** · 08-17-2006, 07:42 AM

I agree with most of what Adam said, But the main factor that makes Linux more secure across the board is that people log into it under restricted user accounts, And when system changes, root files or any file outside of that user account need to be acessed they have to provide the root password. Where as on windows making system and registry changes is easy for a exe to do.

And the reason most people don't use Linux isn't because windows is "better", It's because windows is the most suitable OS for non-technical home users, Which most computer users are now.

Windows is "Fisher price my first bumper book of point and click" and Linux is "Advanced quantum physics, written in ancient greek". We all know what is the better more advanced book out of the two, But what would be most suitable for a child?

I'm not bashing Windows, If windows suites your needs more power to you, But to say windows is better than linux simply because the things that makes windows insecure is the end user or that Linux doesn't have the markket share of windows is misreprisenting the truth.

**hyipo** · 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daiondoroga

Windows is upgrading almost every year.

I think this could be true.

Theres
Windows 3.1 (which I got but one disk missing)
Windows 95 (which I got)
Windows 98 (which I got)
Windows 98SE
Windows NT (which I got)
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Adv. Server (which I got)
Windows XP Home (which I got)
Windows XP Professional
Windows 2003 Server
Windows Vista (I got the Beta)

**KML9870** · 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyipo

I think this could be true.

Theres
Windows 3.1 (which I got but one disk missing)
Windows 95 (which I got)
Windows 98 (which I got)
Windows 98SE
Windows NT (which I got)
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Adv. Server (which I got)
Windows XP Home (which I got)
Windows XP Professional
Windows 2003 Server
Windows Vista (I got the Beta)

Not quite true:

Windows 3.1 released April 1992
Windows 95 released August 1995
Windows 98 released June 1998
Windows 98 SE realeased May 1999
Windows NT released August 1996
Windows ME released July 2000
Windows 2000 released February 2000
Windows XP released October 2001
Windows 2003 Server released March 2003
Windows Vista scheduled to be released sometime late 06, early 07

And you have to remember that versions like 2003 Server and NT were not marketed to the general public. Compared to the rate at which hardware technology becomes out of date, the release dates for new versions of Windows is quite slow.

**Minaki** · 08-18-2006, 09:14 AM

Yeah, you've just listed the different flavours as well as the different versions. Some of those are paralell with others, for example XP Home and XP Pro. And:

Quote:

Windows 2000
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Adv. Server (which I got)

'Windows 2000' is a generic term used to refer to any of the Windows 2000 family. Not a seperate release.

And you can hardly call Windows ME an operating system...

**Choller** · 08-21-2006, 02:16 PM

AM I the only (sucker) still using SP1?

I also haven't reinstalled winXP in like 3 years. I hate reinstalling. I cannot imagine how people keep reinstalling their OS. When I format a HD i'm 100% sure I will forget to save an important file.

**Minaki** · 08-25-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

AM I the only (sucker) still using SP1?

Probably not.

You really should keep up to date with the service packs and hotfixes. There's thousands of people out there who don't bother to update, then their computers become zombie PCs without their knowledge, horbouring trojans/bots that make way for spam, scamming, and other internet nasties.

**FutileSoul** · 08-25-2006, 11:23 AM

i am using ME at home, it sucks i have xp but not installed.