++ on the italized part. Folks go out and spend good money on memory that they then don't want to use. The chips eat the same amount of electricity, why not use the memory to its fullest?
PhreePhly
++ on the italized part. Folks go out and spend good money on memory that they then don't want to use. The chips eat the same amount of electricity, why not use the memory to its fullest?
PhreePhly
To be fair, I think OSX is upto 8% or 9% in the US and 3% world-wide. However, the functional differences between the Vista/Win 7 and OSX GUIs are truly negligible.
I think the OP will be in the minority when Win 7 is released. The key issues that hurt Vista have been pretty much fixed by, ironically, Vista. The should be far fewer driver issues when Win 7 is released. The average PC available should be able to run Win 7 quite well, at least as well as it's replacement, and with the wide open Beta and RC, hardware manufacturers are being pushed into updating their drivers well before RTM.
PhreePhly
- Sep 4, 2003
- 4,668
- 46
- 91
Well to be fair to Win7 it isn't that bad, I was just hoping it would of looked a lot more different is all.
Underneath the hood, yes it's faster.
To ViRGE, no one is talking about sudo, I was talking about being a user under Unix/Linux and needing root. Sudo is not used on all distros.
ViRGE, Unix/Linux based systems are more secure then Windows that's a fact that you don't seem aware of when compared to Windows. You're talking total ignorance here. If you're going to sit here and tell me BSD is less secure then Windows you're talking non-sense. It's a fact there is less malware in the wild for Unix based systems then Windows.
The only secure system, LOL, don't make me laugh. Do you even know what Unix is and what X Windows is and where the security issues come into play?
You don't even need to run Antivirus programs for Linux or any malware protection either, infections are like ZERO. Do you even understand how a Unix user account works? OR where the majority of Unix based software comes from? Viruses and malware in Unix, give it a rest... sheesh....
Microsoft should start to take a more secure approach is all that won't hassle the end-user that much and not be complicated. Just sandbox the user accounts, so anything installed only gets as far as the user account access is concerned and can't infect the system.
P.S. Don't even start trolling on the secutiry of Unix verus Windows, I won't even go there and anyone that is going to sit around and argue this is a fool that knows nothing about Unix, so don't expect any replies back from me over these stupid comments.
Underneath the hood, yes it's faster.
To ViRGE, no one is talking about sudo, I was talking about being a user under Unix/Linux and needing root. Sudo is not used on all distros.
ViRGE, Unix/Linux based systems are more secure then Windows that's a fact that you don't seem aware of when compared to Windows. You're talking total ignorance here. If you're going to sit here and tell me BSD is less secure then Windows you're talking non-sense. It's a fact there is less malware in the wild for Unix based systems then Windows.
The only secure system, LOL, don't make me laugh. Do you even know what Unix is and what X Windows is and where the security issues come into play?
You don't even need to run Antivirus programs for Linux or any malware protection either, infections are like ZERO. Do you even understand how a Unix user account works? OR where the majority of Unix based software comes from? Viruses and malware in Unix, give it a rest... sheesh....
Microsoft should start to take a more secure approach is all that won't hassle the end-user that much and not be complicated. Just sandbox the user accounts, so anything installed only gets as far as the user account access is concerned and can't infect the system.
P.S. Don't even start trolling on the secutiry of Unix verus Windows, I won't even go there and anyone that is going to sit around and argue this is a fool that knows nothing about Unix, so don't expect any replies back from me over these stupid comments.
Well, I'll go there. What exactly is it that makes *nix more secure than windows? You made the assertion, so it's up to you to prove it. You do realize that the notion of "rootkits" comes from the *nix world. All *nixes have to be patched to maintain security.
The simple fact has to do with users. Why are *nixes not very popular to the general public? Might it be that the general public doesn't want to run a system with that tight a control. SELinux or netBSD might be the most secure OSes around out of the box, but grandma ain't gonna run them. That's the trade-off. A competent windows admin can make a Windows install virtually bullet-proof, as secure as any *nix distro, however, very few users would use that system.
Windows NT actually has more fine-grained control over files than *nix. There are back and forth discussions about kernel strengths, but both are about equal. The key difference is the user base. *nix could give a crap about the user base. MS doesn't have that option. They have 97% of the world's userbase. They have to keep it simple.
The good malware writers can infect any OS that requires user intervention. It's not about programming skill, it's about social engineering. Convince them to run your software and you've got them. It's that simple.
The general Windows userbase is more easily tricked. MS tried with UAC, but that little bit of inconvienence nearly killed Vista. They have dummied it down in Win 7 (unfortunately) so it will probably do better, but it's easier to get around now.
PhreePhly
Texun
Platinum Member
- Oct 21, 2001
- 2,058
- 1
- 81
If you're talking looks then I'll add my input and say I don't like the taskbar. It looks too edgy. What happened to smooth edges? There have been studies done to show that people find curves more appeasing than blocks... Vida Guerra Vs. Rosie O'Donnell, or Jaguar Vs. Volvo. Maybe not everyone prefers curves and smooth edges but I do. At least give me a choice.
There are several "features" that I don't like but MS has a tough nut to crack since they are marketing to noobs and hard core enthusiasts. The UAC is worthless in my opinion and I loath the lack of burning options. For burning a disc I'll download ImageBurn before I'll use Windows. There are several others on my list but these are near the top. From a speed standpoint I think they jumped the shark after XP. I don't see that one is significantly better than the other as long as you can throw enough hardware at them. Just my $.02.
There are several "features" that I don't like but MS has a tough nut to crack since they are marketing to noobs and hard core enthusiasts. The UAC is worthless in my opinion and I loath the lack of burning options. For burning a disc I'll download ImageBurn before I'll use Windows. There are several others on my list but these are near the top. From a speed standpoint I think they jumped the shark after XP. I don't see that one is significantly better than the other as long as you can throw enough hardware at them. Just my $.02.
Really? I find that the interface is far smoother than XP. There is more shadowing, transparencies, etc. Interesting observation.
As far as UAC is concerned, I don't think you have a clear understanding of what it all about. And what do want in terms of burning. Windows 7 now burns isos and can, of course, still burn CDs and DVDs. Granted, I prefer ImgBurn, but that is more force of habit, since I've been using ImgBurn for many years.
PhreePhly
Texun
Platinum Member
- Oct 21, 2001
- 2,058
- 1
- 81
I'm good with the transparency and shadowing but the task bar just looks edgy to me. It was the first thing I noticed when I booted up the first time and after the UAC it was the next thing I wanted to change. I'm not sure why you would think I don't understand what the UAC is all about, but unless it still provides some protection after the click through I may have missed something because I disabled it PDQ. Urge often ignores logic (mine frequently does) so anyone wanting to make changes will likely click through it or turn it off once they find the switch. I will say that I like the scaling option. It's an improvement over Vista since it's no longer an all or nothing option.
If I had not found ImageBurn a long time ago I would probably be using Windows for burning so I'll chalk that up to habit and a hesitation to change what works. I tried burning without ImageBurn and ended up with my first coaster in months. I downloaded IB and haven't gone back.
I still find the Gui "smoother" than XP, but that is such a poor metric. I'll chalk that up to different strokes. UAC is nothing more than a notification service. It lets you know that a program is trying to perform an action reserved for the admins. I think that MS screwed up in offering a sliding scale.
I've burned numerous of install CDs while playing with the various builds using the Windows iso burner and never had a problem, but I still prefer the ImgBurn interface.
PhreePhly
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Actually yes, I'm quite familiar with Unix. I can tell you all about the Unix laptop I'm typing this on right now (MacBook Pro), the Ubuntu Linux box I have for a server, or maybe the Windows desktop that I have. I could tell you about my time working in IT doing server administration (Mac OS X and Solaris) but it would probably just bore you.
But I will say this: With a proper user authentication system (sudo or UAC) there's little technological difference between Windows Vista, Mac OS X, and your typical *nix distribution. Windows does have a few more stupid flaws than the others - mainly that autorun (which is being disabled) and that October 2008 Server service remote code execution flaw - but these are not deal breakers. The vast majority of all attacks are worms that require initial user authentication to execute. These are social engineering attacks, every last OS that allows the user to run applications are vulnerable to such attacks.
Now I will flatly admit that there is a practical difference: very few people are trying to use social engineering attacks against *nix systems at the moment, limiting the threat to automated remote attacks such as bots taking advantages of old SSH and Apache installations, or trying to guess SSH passwords. That's one of the nice things about having a MacBook, I don't need to be as worried about someone trying to screw me over. This doesn't stop me from keeping a virus scanner installed though to catch the occasional Mac worm, crazy document macro viruses, or inadvertently passing on infected stuff to Windows machines. Never the less, this doesn't make *nix more technologically secure, it makes it less attacked. The two are not the same.
Meanwhile sandboxing accounts is not a practical long-term solution. It prevents the installation of software that can be shared by multiple accounts (effectively rendering any such system a single-user system) and would prevent the installation of things like new drivers, program updates, etc. A system where you can never run anything as admin/root is not a practical system. You need to have security contextes so that regular software can't change the system, and another context where you can change the system.
And I should note that yes, you were in fact talking about sudo
Requiring authentication for admin actions, that's sudo. In fact that's also UAC, the only real difference between the two is clicking on a secure desktop versus asking for a password.
In short, I'm not sure whether you are a fool or a troll. Perhaps you're both. In either case go eat a dick, and if you're feeling really generous, go sudo rm -rf / that Linux box you seem to be devoted to.
Snapster
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2001
- 3,916
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
In short, I'm sure sure whether you are a fool or a troll. Perhaps you're both. In either case go eat a dick, and if you're feeling really generous, go sudo rm -rf / that Linux box you seem to be devoted to.
:thumbsup: lol
All in all I think it's one of Microsoft's best releases to date, it's polished before it's even released and they'll still do a little fit and finish. Regarding UAC User's need to learn not to run as an administrator and the current releases of Windows are going to be a little bit of painful learning for those used to the free reign on everything. One thing people complaining about it should note is that if they really want not to be nagged, they have the choice to go away and do that. UAC is popping up less and less nowadays as 3rd party dev's finally get their ass in gear and install applications correctly and do not assume they can install freely to \windows or \programfiles.
If anything I do think W7 is a rushed released and could have even gone a little further under a normal cycle, but it was designed to swiftly replace Vista which failed it's purpose due to undeserved bad PR and lack of real support from 3rd parties getting drivers done and tested on time. My only criticism is that W7 needs more of an identity as there is GUI on the whole is a little inconsistent in terms of fonts, colours being different in various locations.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,284
- 138
- 106
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Actually yes, I'm quite familiar with Unix. I can tell you all about the Unix laptop I'm typing this on right now (MacBook Pro), the Ubuntu Linux box I have for a server, or maybe the Windows desktop that I have. I could tell you about my time working in IT doing server administration (Mac OS X and Solaris) but it would probably just bore you.
But I will say this: With a proper user authentication system (sudo or UAC) there's little technological difference between Windows Vista, Mac OS X, and your typical *nix distribution. Windows does have a few more stupid flaws than the others - mainly that autorun (which is being disabled) and that October 2008 Server service remote code execution flaw - but these are not deal breakers. The vast majority of all attacks are worms that require initial user authentication to execute. These are social engineering attacks, every last OS that allows the user to run applications are vulnerable to such attacks.
Now I will flatly admit that there is a practical difference: very few people are trying to use social engineering attacks against *nix systems at the moment, limiting the threat to automated remote attacks such as bots taking advantages of old SSH and Apache installations, or trying to guess SSH passwords. That's one of the nice things about having a MacBook, I don't need to be as worried about someone trying to screw me over. This doesn't stop me from keeping a virus scanner installed though to catch the occasional Mac worm, crazy document macro viruses, or inadvertently passing on infected stuff to Windows machines. Never the less, this doesn't make *nix more technologically secure, it makes it less attacked. The two are not the same.
Meanwhile sandboxing accounts is not a practical long-term solution. It prevents the installation of software that can be shared by multiple accounts (effectively rendering any such system a single-user system) and would prevent the installation of things like new drivers, program updates, etc. A system where you can never run anything as admin/root is not a practical system. You need to have security contextes so that regular software can't change the system, and another context where you can change the system.
And I should note that yes, you were in fact talking about sudo
Requiring authentication for admin actions, that's sudo. In fact that's also UAC, the only real difference between the two is clicking on a secure desktop versus asking for a password.
In short, I'm not sure whether you are a fool or a troll. Perhaps you're both. In either case go eat a dick, and if you're feeling really generous, go sudo rm -rf / that Linux box you seem to be devoted to.
Absolutely agree. Just because people aren't writing a ton of viruses for an OS doesn't mean that they can't. Especially when you consider that most viruses for windows are meant to trick the user into running malicious software instead of breaking some hole in the OS. I see no way a linux system would be more secure then a windows in that case.
The program requests root access? OK! It's a really cool program that has dancing pigs!
Drive by installs have a hard time editing the registry with UAC. And since most people ran WinXP as an admin it was so easy propagate malware via IE with a simple link in an email that say click me.
Sorry if my question has been asked and answered (I haven't gotten through the entire thread yet), but is this true for remote desktop/vnc type technologies? These will not display the UAC prompt?
RDP connections to Vista/2008/7 still display the UAC prompt if. You still get the ssecure desktop though where you cant automate the clicking of the yes button.
Which distros don't use sudo?
http://xkcd.com/552/
I need to check if the systems beating at my SSH server are windows or *nix...
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
i dont see it as disappointing, i run W7 for some months already and it GREATLY improves many aspects which drove me crazy w/ Vista.
Although i have some complaints but those are rather cosmetical nature - eg. appearance of startmenu and themes, i just prefer the "old style" themes and folder-view.
And...did i mention i HATE Windows Live Mail! I had a hack to get winmail running on beta...but it doesnt work anymore with W7 RC, and, did i mention i also dont like Thunderbird (for some reason it receives TONS of spam mails which the other clients didnt). The mail issue is actually my biggest problem.
Otherwise its a sharp OS, its not "flashy"...but it does a good job there where it counts. Solid.
Although i have some complaints but those are rather cosmetical nature - eg. appearance of startmenu and themes, i just prefer the "old style" themes and folder-view.
And...did i mention i HATE Windows Live Mail! I had a hack to get winmail running on beta...but it doesnt work anymore with W7 RC, and, did i mention i also dont like Thunderbird (for some reason it receives TONS of spam mails which the other clients didnt). The mail issue is actually my biggest problem.
Otherwise its a sharp OS, its not "flashy"...but it does a good job there where it counts. Solid.
What don't you like about Live mail? I actually prefer it to the mail client in Vista.
PhreePhly
Re: UAC vs Sudo
Sudo on Linux/Unix is by a far a more secure security implementation simply because the needs to use it is much less. With UAC popping up constantly the user quickly becomes conditioned to just click yes to get back to what they were doing. The UAC alerts that pop up all the time are genuine security concerns, and there are a lot of them because Windows and it's vast library of apps by and large don't behave well from a security standpoint (everything from old dos apps that want direct access to hardware to the latest and greatest ANTI VIRUS program that simply refuses to run without admin privileges).
This is because Unix/Linux were designed from the ground up as a multi-user operating system with network access, and it shows. UAC is a bolt on to an OS and library of apps that were designed with a single user in mind and many before the concept of a network was even conceived for home computers. Until MS gets on board with designing an OS from the ground up with network and user security in mind and enforces compliance to reduce UAC spam, it will remain less secure than Unix/Linux. Until then, there will be legions of users who are conditioned to click "yes" no matter what pops up on their screen, so the net effect of UAC is a minimal improvement in security at best.
I can use a Linux desktop for weeks at a time with no need to use sudo (one the system is set up).
On Windows 7 I get a UAC dialog at least once a day -- often more like once an hour on average.
Sudo on Linux/Unix is by a far a more secure security implementation simply because the needs to use it is much less. With UAC popping up constantly the user quickly becomes conditioned to just click yes to get back to what they were doing. The UAC alerts that pop up all the time are genuine security concerns, and there are a lot of them because Windows and it's vast library of apps by and large don't behave well from a security standpoint (everything from old dos apps that want direct access to hardware to the latest and greatest ANTI VIRUS program that simply refuses to run without admin privileges).
This is because Unix/Linux were designed from the ground up as a multi-user operating system with network access, and it shows. UAC is a bolt on to an OS and library of apps that were designed with a single user in mind and many before the concept of a network was even conceived for home computers. Until MS gets on board with designing an OS from the ground up with network and user security in mind and enforces compliance to reduce UAC spam, it will remain less secure than Unix/Linux. Until then, there will be legions of users who are conditioned to click "yes" no matter what pops up on their screen, so the net effect of UAC is a minimal improvement in security at best.
I can use a Linux desktop for weeks at a time with no need to use sudo (one the system is set up).
On Windows 7 I get a UAC dialog at least once a day -- often more like once an hour on average.
Actually, NT was designed to be a multiuser system and was designed with networking in mind. In fact, NT was developed and originally used for Enterprise servers and workstation operating systems. You are thinking back to DOS based Windows, which we don't use any more. This stuff was not just slapped on as you imply. Large parts of Windows had to be recoded for Vista, including the kernel in order to support running certain drivers at user level and to support the various aspects of UAC. Windows 7 is just further refinement of these changes and it shows in how efficient and secure it is out of the box compared to previous Microsoft operating systems
As far as more prompts happening than Linux or Unix, I only get prompted when I require admin level access,which is getting rarer and rarer due to proper coding practices being forced on Windows applications developers because of UAC. An idiot is an idiot regardless of OS and if a few more promts causes the idiot to ignore them or to turn off UAC, that is their problem and let the moron enjoy thier malware because they deserve it.
What are you doing that requires a UAC prompt once an hour? That should not happen with any modern program, including the best anti-virus applications on the market.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter