Refering to LOLFags convo.
Viruses on Windows 7?
-
-
DamnImGood wrote:
Now, some comments on the systems and whatnot. Yes with OS X you need the administrator password to install anything. This is indeed incredibly annoying and inconvenient, but that's the price you pay for security: convenience; I have said this before and I will continue to do so. To my knowledge Vista and 7 can do the same thing via UAC; it's just not activated by default (I believe it's one level lower). Second, can you not turn that off in OS X? You can in Vista and 7.
Nope, there's no way to turn it off. The "Installer requires that you type your password" popup is part of the Unix root itself, whereas UAC is basically a "nag screen" based off a simple script. Picture it something like "if Installer start = true then NagScreen()". Even MS has admitted isn't really effective, since it doesn't require a password and it can be turned off. In Windows there is no concept of separating "User" and "Root", it's all the same level. In Unix systems, users stay in sandboxes most of the time, and the root is only accessed when performing application installs or other similar functions.
I really think it's only a matter of time before MS has to the overhaul I was talking about earlier. The root password prompt will annoy the shit out of people...but oh well...it's more secure that way. lrn2unix. :cool:
And might I just add that if I were in charge of the United States as a dictator, I would restructure our education system to require no less than 500 hours of computer education. This would include everything from the hardware itself to learning how to use every operating system in existence. Flunking these courses would forfeit your entire grade.
Adult who's already been to school? Well guess what, you're going back. 
-
See, if you know to pick your sources, you wouldn't get crap on your machine. I also, didn't have viruses in YEARS, and I've been using XP, Vista and 7 through those. My sister on the other hand, downloads stuff from bad places cause she's 11 and she doesn't know better; and she gets viruses every monday and thursday and I've reformatted her comp figuring it's easier than getting rid of all the viruses more times than I've played through the first 3D Spider-Man game
-
DamnImGood wrote:
Can you cite this? I don't believe Microsoft has admitted UAC is ineffective, since it's their backbone for security for Vista and 7 and why it's more secure than XP. And it does require a password if you have it set to. The whole purpose of the UAC is to at the very least, prompt the user something is about to change on their system and to ask them if they want to proceed. In XP this never occurred because all the users were local administrators, which of course have access to do almost anything they wanted.
I could've sworn I'd seen an article mentioning this on one of the IT websites I visit, now I can't seem to find it. -
I can only count... 2 times I've had to reinstall Windows on account of a virus/trojan/etc. The rest were my own fault and I take full responsibility for them. I've only ever used a Mac in the Apple store, so I can't comment on security of OS X, but after years of running numerous *nix-based systems, I can safely say that Windows is probably your best option. Linux is simply a homebrew, experimental, hobbyist OS. That's all it as ever meant to be, and that's all it will ever be.
As DIG said, the best antivirus is the user. I find it so sad that the Internet has become what it has: dumbed down technologies for the average, unsuspecting, lacking-common-sense citizen. -
Steven wrote:
I find it so sad that the Internet has become what it has: dumbed down technologies for the average, unsuspecting, lacking-common-sense citizen.
Not just the Internet but computers themselves. It's depressing to me how slowly things move in the mainstream, "x86-based $399 retail-box PC" world. Out here we've graduated to 64-bit CPUs and operating systems just within the last few years, when for example SGI IRIX was fully 64-bit and running on 64-bit MIPS processors by 1994. Sun Solaris and Sun's SPARC architecture have similarly been 64-bit for years now.
I actually feel sorry for the big IT companies like Microsoft, Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, etc. in this regard: they certainly have the funds to move things along faster if they wanted to, but having to cater to the masses, with their technological apathy and budget constraints, that's impossible, and it hinders progress. Most average users will buy a cheap, slow PC bundle off the shelf at Office Depot and use it just to check their email. After several years of email checking and having downloaded every virus and Trojan known to man, their computer is now unusable so it's off to the retail stores again to pick out a new one. As long as it's on sale.
-
Steven wrote:
I can only count... 2 times I've had to reinstall Windows on account of a virus/trojan/etc. The rest were my own fault and I take full responsibility for them. I've only ever used a Mac in the Apple store, so I can't comment on security of OS X, but after years of running numerous *nix-based systems, I can safely say that Windows is probably your best option. Linux is simply a homebrew, experimental, hobbyist OS. That's all it as ever meant to be, and that's all it will ever be.
As DIG said, the best antivirus is the user. I find it so sad that the Internet has become what it has: dumbed down technologies for the average, unsuspecting, lacking-common-sense citizen.
Really?
You're sure?
Considering the fact that Ubuntu, Fedora and OpenSUSE are backed by companies (Canonical, Red Hat and Novell), that statement is not entirely true. If you were talking about Linux Mint and the many other distros, then I totally agree with you.
I have also only used a Mac at an Apple Store, but I do not see the big deal about the OS asking you for a password to do anything. I actually kind of like it. The problem with people who use Windows exclusively is they bitch and complain about one thing, then when Microsoft does something about it, they bitch again saying the old way was better. Windows users are never happy, but that is understandable because every man, woman, child and their dog uses Windows. They don't know any better, thus they can't ever be happy because they do not know what to compare Windows too. As far as they are concerned, Windows is the only Operating System on the planet. Not to mention the fact, these people are the same people who prejudge and insult Linux and Mac OS, before they even had a chance to use it.
And because of this ignorance, Microsoft is making money left, right and center. They are overconfident, they do not see Mac OS and Linux as competitors. But because of the Vista's failure, Microsoft only now is concerned because many of their faithful users have migrated to the opposition.
But we can confidently say that Windows 7 is the best Windows operating system. I am not going to go as far to say it is THE best, because that is an over statement. But it shows that if the company would just listen to the users, they would have the best OS on the market.
Mac OS is still a serious competitor, and they all have their pros and cons, but at the end of the day, it is up to the user. -
Tombgeek wrote:
Really?
You're sure?
Considering the fact that Ubuntu, Fedora and OpenSUSE are backed by companies (Canonical, Red Hat, and Novell), that statement is not entirely true.
I fail to see how having funding from a corporation retroactively reverses what Linux was meant to be and is used for. -
Steven wrote:
I fail to see how having funding from a corporation retroactively reverses what Linux was meant to be and is used for.
Haha. You're funny. Red Hat provides funding towards the Fedora project. Ubuntu and OpenSUSE are developed and supported by Canonical and Novell.
Also, what Linux was meant for back then is not what it is now. While it was meant as an OS to give the finger to UNIX and Windows (although always stood by the philosophy of providing free software), it is now a full operating system that is almost on level with Windows and MacOS.
Linux had, and still has, a lot of potential, and the selling of support instead of the software is just genius if you think about it. While Linux is not as user friendly as Windows or Mac, it is useful for all your basic needs, like web browsing and listening to music.
Have you even used a Linux distro before? -
Tombgeek wrote:
Haha. You're funny. Red Hat provides funding towards the Fedora project. Ubuntu and OpenSUSE are developed and supported by Canonical and Novell.
Also, what Linux was meant for back then is not what it is now. While it was meant as an OS to give the finger to UNIX and Windows (although always stood by the philosophy of providing free software), it is now a full operating system that is almost on level with Windows and MacOS.
Linux had, and still has, a lot of potential, and the selling of support instead of the software is just genius if you think about it. While Linux is not as user friendly as Windows or Mac, it is useful for all your basic needs, like web browsing and listening to music.
Have you even used a Linux distro before?
QFT.
I've used a Linux distro for about a year (openSUSE 10. ...3? I think) till I got tired of it. Linux is awesome and all, but it depends what you wanna do with it. I guess it's great for terminal, hacking, programming, that sorta more geeky usage for computers than Win and Mac offers. All the free apps on it eventually compare pretty good to all the commercial apps other OSes have to offer; though they're usually a lot harder to find and aren't as user friendly (both installing and usage).
I eventually went back to Windows because of incompatibility issues. I had a lot of games and apps that didn't run on Wine and a lot of stuff to do with them (like play with friends or watch a video properly, or have voip chats over MSN/Skype, which Kopete and Pidgin would only offer webcam usage without mic, for example). In the end Linux is powerful but it's just not meant, or not the best at this point for the average teenager. But saying it's for kiddies and it's a bad OS isn't true; like any other OS, it's good for what it's meant for. I bet anyone who wants a powerful machine with complete freedom and the ability to use it for more advanced things would choose a Linux.
Also, don't forget, that most web hosting services these day offer Linux hosting since it's powerful, free in price and has a lot of opportunities and options, compares to a Windows server which doesn't always even come with PHP and costs 100 times as much to host on. -
dokueki wrote:
QFT.
I've used a Linux distro for about a year (openSUSE 10. ...3? I think) till I got tired of it. Linux is awesome and all, but it depends what you wanna do with it. I guess it's great for terminal, hacking, programming, that sorta more geeky usage for computers than Win and Mac offers. All the free apps on it eventually compare pretty good to all the commercial apps other OSes have to offer; though they're usually a lot harder to find and aren't as user friendly (both installing and usage).
I eventually went back to Windows because of incompatibility issues. I had a lot of games and apps that didn't run on Wine and a lot of stuff to do with them (like play with friends or watch a video properly, or have voip chats over MSN/Skype, which Kopete and Pidgin would only offer webcam usage without mic, for example). In the end Linux is powerful but it's just not meant, or not the best at this point for the average teenager. But saying it's for kiddies and it's a bad OS isn't true; like any other OS, it's good for what it's meant for. I bet anyone who wants a powerful machine with complete freedom and the ability to use it for more advanced things would choose a Linux.
Also, don't forget, that most web hosting services these day offer Linux hosting since it's powerful, free in price and has a lot of opportunities and options, compares to a Windows server which doesn't always even come with PHP and costs 100 times as much to host on.
Good point. Linux does have some compatibility issues, especially with my crappy motherboard (took me forever to get sound drivers working). People may say Linux is a geek's operating system, which is true in a sense. But as I said previously, I only use Linux for basic things, such as web browsing and text editing. For programming, I use Windows (have to work with Delphi, and does not work properly under WINE).
But considering the fact that I live in South Africa, and our internet blows, online gaming, VoIP, and all kinds of other crap does not really matter to me (or I am just anti-social, although that statement is not particularly true, otherwise I would not be trolling this forum).
The one reason I moved to Linux (apart from the fact it is free), is because of viruses and stability. I may consider moving to Windows 7, but only once the first service pack is released. -
Tombgeek wrote:
Good point. Linux does have some compatibility issues, especially with my crappy motherboard (took me forever to get sound drivers working). People may say Linux is a geek's operating system, which is true in a sense. But as I said previously, I only use Linux for basic things, such as web browsing and text editing. For programming, I use Windows (have to work with Delphi, and does not work properly under WINE).
But considering the fact that I live in South Africa, and our internet blows, online gaming, VoIP, and all kinds of other crap does not really matter to me (or I am just anti-social, although that statement is not particularly true, otherwise I would not be trolling this forum).
The one reason I moved to Linux (apart from the fact it is free), is because of viruses and stability. I may consider moving to Windows 7, but only once the first service pack is released.
To be fair, Windows 7 was built upon Vista, so it's technically already in Service Pack 2 as far as security goes. Security-wise 7 is awesome. UAC is less annoying (still turned it off though). Performance-wise, it's also awesome: faster than XP in my experience, and a lot more stable. -
dokueki wrote:
To be fair, Windows 7 was built upon Vista, so it's technically already in Service Pack 2 as far as security goes. Security-wise 7 is awesome. UAC is less annoying (still turned it off though). Performance-wise, it's also awesome: faster than XP in my experience, and a lot more stable.
I know, I have played around with 7 and I like it, but I never rush in and upgrade to a new Operating System while it is still new, I first want to see how the community reacts to it and see all its flaws. Also, I always wait so that there are security and system updates available the minute I install an operating system. I did the same thing with Ubuntu 9.10.
I thank myself everyday for not upgrading (if you can call it that) to Vista. I did my research and realized it was not for me. 7 on the other hand I will be willing to use (once I can actually afford it).
But I still do not see the big issue with UAC. I mean it does the same thing with Mac and Linux, and I actually don't mind. It is a small price to pay for peace of mind. And it only takes like 3 seconds.
Microsoft is at least trying to make security and stability a priority with 7, and for that I applaud them. But they are still a long way from making a operating system secure enough to match a UNIX system. -
Tombgeek wrote:
Haha. You're funny. Red Hat provides funding towards the Fedora project. Ubuntu and OpenSUSE are developed and supported by Canonical and Novell.
You failed to respond to my argument. I never denied the fact that some projects have funding. Learn to read.
Tombgeek wrote:
While it was meant as an OS to give the finger to UNIX and Windows (although always stood by the philosophy of providing free software), it is now a full operating system that is almost on level with Windows and MacOS.
Linux was never meant as a competitor to Windows and Mac. It was a hobby project.
Tombgeek wrote:
Linux had, and still has, a lot of potential, and the selling of support instead of the software is just genius if you think about it. While Linux is not as user friendly as Windows or Mac, it is useful for all your basic needs, like web browsing and listening to music.
So? Windows and Mac OS X have a lot of potential, and in many cases do more for the user than Linux does.
Tombgeek wrote:
Have you even used a Linux distro before?
I suggest, once again, you learn to read. -
DamnImGood wrote:
Steve Ballmer is laughing.
I could not resist...
[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
---------- Post added at 12:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 AM ----------
[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 AM ----------
He laughs!!! -
If you hadn't taken that out of context, I meant it as a more advanced OS when regarding to terminal use, and a lot of other buncha stuff a Windows user would probably not feel like touching.
DamnImGood wrote:
I can have a powerful machine with Windows. I can have complete or near complete freedom with Windows. What advanced things can I not do with Windows that you can do with Linux?
As reliable as Windows is compared to Linux, it's still a lot more problematic from what I've seen when it comes to web dev. I've tried both shares and to be fair, Linux hosting was the natural choice for me not only cause it's inexpensive (or sometimes free), but because in my (though somewhat limited) experience showed me it's a lot more stable and gives you more freedom.DamnImGood wrote:
Majority of the Internet runs on Linux because it's a) inexpensive and b) because it's reliable. -
DamnImGood wrote:
How is it taken out of context?
Because freedom in Linux is different than freedom in Windows. Linux usually being open source is what lets you have complete and total control over the OS itself, not only on apps that run on it. A lot of Windows apps change how Windows works, but they do so in ways that are either by "hacking" the OS or using global shortcuts and the likes to replace ordinary Windows usage. In Linux a lot of apps just modify the source to their needs. Yeah, it's mostly freedom not a lot of people would need, but it's still there.
DamnImGood wrote:
For the bold part: Such as what?
"I guess it's great for terminal, hacking, programmin ... " Windows is great for those too, but face it, batch is far less powerful than bash, plus the way Windows security is built you'd probably have to work a bit harder to get anywhere serious in those areas
DamnImGood wrote:
Read my post again. You just basically paraphrased what I wrote.
Well you said because it's reliable, I read that as in, not in comparison to Windows servers but just reliable enough D: -
Nice post! I want to upgrade my OS to window 7.
-
-
Share