Another Vista rant

[Twey]

maybe i am missing something, or i have to be a hardcore computer programmer or something to notice why vista is "bad"

Microsoft are being clever by releasing these protection 'features' now; The average user who goes to a computer store will get Vista but won't have either premium content or get 'premium ready' PC hardware; The ordinary person in the street can't afford a top-of-the-line machine and display. They will have a 'Vista capable' machine; Vista will look nice and not cause too much trouble or suffer from the protection overhead too much; They won't have any choice or know any different and it will be accepted. These people will dismiss any complaints they hear about these problems as a geek thing. They got their computer at the right price and it does everything they ask of it. They will only find out the truth in a few years when they buy their next computer and all machines are 'premium ready' (and fast enough to implement the protection) and every display has an HDMI connector. By that time XP will be well into its decline so there will be no going back. It's impossible to keep off the upgrade treadmill if you have Windows; Eventually you will either have to buy new hardware (with a new copy of Windows) or your out-of-support version of Windows will become such a target for malware that it will no longer be useable

I really do recommend reading that article.

[Johnnymushio]

okay, windows 98 isnt supported for a while now.

it doesnt even have firewall, antivirus, or anything.

and, it doesnt have any adware or viruses, and run fast.

my mom still uses it with no problem.

that paul guy made it seem that only windows os go obsolete, even though eventually all os will go obsolete one day.

i was reading earlier about why people hate it. and every problem they had i did not have. i have no idea why. the articles made it seem like no programs work with it. i even use old programs, like 5 or 10 years old, and they work fine.

the comp never locks up or anything, and unlike xp, when a program says it isnt responding, i just wait 5 seconds and it works again. but in xp, when a program doesnt respond, you have to ctrl alt del and end it.

[jscheuer1]

It's a Geek thing. I'm sort of a Geek. Generally, to all of the 'normal' people I know, I'm a Geek. To the Geeks, I'm not really with it. My response to Vista so far has been, I read about it when it was coming out, rather than listening to all the hype. I concluded it was a work in progress. I had rather recently gotten a decent PC with XP. I counted myself lucky, and still await developments. MS will sooner or later either get Vista right, or replace it with something that works.

[Johnnymushio]

i still dont see the problem.... and i still wanna know why tech support thinks i flood this forum with vista rants, and i never had a problem with it in the first place

[Twey]

okay, windows 98 isnt supported for a while now.

it doesnt even have firewall, antivirus, or anything.

and, it doesnt have any adware or viruses, and run fast.

my mom still uses it with no problem.

I'd be willing to put money on the fact that said machine is infected with at least five different pieces of malware. About the only way I can imagine it surviving is if it were so well-suited to malware that they lived, evolved, overpopulated and died on it (or perhaps went to war with one another over content protection...). Run a scan on it and see.

that paul guy made it seem that only windows os go obsolete, even though eventually all os will go obsolete one day.

That wasn't the point. He was pointing out that it will eventually become necessary to upgrade beyond XP, probably some time after the effects of all this DRM hit home, so the common Windows user's response of "if you don't like it, just don't use it" won't really work.

i was reading earlier about why people hate it. and every problem they had i did not have. i have no idea why. the articles made it seem like no programs work with it. i even use old programs, like 5 or 10 years old, and they work fine.

Which programs in particular, out of curiosity? But this, again, is beside the point: it's a new system, lack of backwards compatibility is only to be expected, and is a sign of development progressing.

the comp never locks up or anything, and unlike xp, when a program says it isnt responding, i just wait 5 seconds and it works again. but in xp, when a program doesnt respond, you have to ctrl alt del and end it.

As I've said before, it's a major improvement over XP (in terms of security [actual security, not DRM] as well), and if it weren't for the DRM I'd be all for it.

i still wanna know why tech support thinks i flood this forum with vista rants

I think he just confused you with lainlives.

[boxxertrumps]

I'd be willing to put money on the fact that said machine is infected with at least five different pieces of malware.

I have a part time job at a computer repair shop.
I've seen computers with over 1000 infected files, with 200 or so different species of virus and mal/adware. (the owners used the internet more religiously than I have.)
I dont think we ever saw a computer that wasn't used for the internet at one point, so i'll agree with twey unless the comp had no access to the tubes.

[jscheuer1]

I have a part time job at a computer repair shop.
I've seen computers with over 1000 infected files, with 200 or so different species of virus and mal/adware. (the owners used the internet more religiously than I have.)
I dont think we ever saw a computer that wasn't used for the internet at one point, so i'll agree with twey unless the comp had no access to the tubes.

What is that avatar from?

Anyways, a lot of this stuff can be avoided by simple 'clean living' - no **** sites, no attempts to get free stuff (software, music, images) that isn't really free if gotten legally. And by 'common sense' or 'dignity' - not reading mail from strangers, not clicking yes when the computer says that doing so might be bad.

If you couple that with an older machine with a legacy OS that has one way or another emerged from its heyday without any current infections, you are probably in pretty good shape, as long as you don't mind dealing with the older type system that it is. The hackers are no longer 'gunning' for you.

There are additional precautions that could/could have be/been taken both now and along the road to such a relatively enviable situation. These are things like using third party software and utilities to further minimize your exposure to risk. Any such measure should be weighed with its benefits against any performance hit it might bring with it.

[Twey]

Anyways, a lot of this stuff can be avoided by simple 'clean living' - no **** sites, no attempts to get free stuff (software, music, images) that isn't really free if gotten legally. And by 'common sense' or 'dignity' - not reading mail from strangers, not clicking yes when the computer says that doing so might be bad.

Evidently not those critical pre-patch infections.

If you couple that with an older machine with a legacy OS that has one way or another emerged from its heyday without any current infections, you are probably in pretty good shape, as long as you don't mind dealing with the older type system that it is. The hackers are no longer 'gunning' for you.

Highly unlikely. A cracker (which is what I think you mean) would see such machines as ideal targets: no patches, no support, lots of known holes; easy zombies. It's practically a textbook exercise: the cracker has all the information necessary to compromise the system and furthermore knows that since said system is no longer supported, he or she will most likely be able to continue compromising systems of that type indefinitely. As people stop buying older systems these become rarer, but when found they would be considered a real gem, practically gift-wrapped. A typical cracker isn't looking for the latest software on which to test his or her mettle, he or she simply wants to increase the size of his or her botnet (and thus its net worth).

[jscheuer1]

Twey, you commented on the first part of my post out of context to what followed. It in no way was intended to refer to a new installation. I don't mind that you did though, I could have been more clear.

The fact remains. If your practices and OS have stood the test of time, it is unlikely that any new threats will be unleashed that target it. Hacker is an acceptable usage here. There are good and there are evil hackers. In my personal lexicon, I reserve crackers more for those who break software licensing protections. Oh, and for bigoted white people.

[Twey]

The fact remains. If your practices and OS have stood the test of time, it is unlikely that any new threats will be unleashed that target it.

I disagree, especially if support is withdrawn.

Hacker is an acceptable usage here. There are good and there are evil hackers.

Which is why a more specific term is necessary. You could just as well use "person." From the Jargon File:

A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.

This obviously extends well beyond the bounds of the meaning you're attempting to convey.

In my personal lexicon, I reserve crackers more for those who break software licensing protections.

Doesn't mean you can expect other people to understand you when speaking this other language of yours

Oh, and for bigoted white people.

That's a definition I hadn't heard before -- must be an American thing.