Printable View
Can I just say this one more time: Vista sucks! I am so tired of getting spammed, getting asked “are you sure…” for everything and mostly I am tired of hearing my employees cry out from their desks in frustration dealing with their emails and files. The last thing I want to do is reinvest in another office application, so I wonder where can I find some kind of solution without plunking down another couple thousand dollars?
Don't take it personally, he hates everyone. His massive fortune is his revenge for having been berated and abused his whole life, because he is a colossal geek.
Steph,
There are a couple of reasons for this, and they both revolve around the fact that Microsoft is a marketing company, not a software company.
First, the poor design of Windows allows for viruses and spyware. Instead of fixing the design problems, they chose to put a "Cancel or Allow" dialog in the way of doing anything productive. (To be fair, this isn't completely Microsoft's fault. Many software companies chose to use the features of Windows that are insecure. In order for Microsoft to continue their monopoly by preventing choice in the marketplace, each version of Windows needs to be compatible with the previous versions. If the new versions weren't compatible, then the software companies, who have to re-write their apps anyway, would have a reason to look at platforms that aren't so fraught with problems. Likewise for the end-users; if their apps are available on a platform that doesn't have such problems, they have a high incentive to migrate.)
Second, Microsoft has to pander to the wants and desires of the media companies. Each time you perform any action - from backing up your system to creating an invoice in your accounting system - Windows Vista has to check to make sure that you aren't uploading the latest action flick to the Internet, watching a movie on your HDTV that the movie companies don't want you to, or listening to a song with unapproved high-def headphones. It does this even if you don't own a HTDV, watch movies on VHS, and have an 8-Track tape player. All of this extra work means that you have to purchase an extra-powerful computer and use more electricity just to get the same amount of stuff done.
Of course, all this helps the media companies, and the hardware companies, and Microsoft, because you the customer has to buy all this other stuff. But on the other hand, you the customer waste thousands buying things you don't really need.
Linux and Macintosh don't suffer from these problems, but they don't yet have the vertical market apps that Windows does. I predict they will in the next year or so; there are already a handful of excellent accounting applications for those platforms.
I am happily productive on a computer I purchased in 1998. The computer has 1/10 the power of today's machines yet I am still able to do my accounting, spreadsheets, and business documents. And I have zero problems with viruses or spyware.
My advice to you is to re-install XP; and in the meantime, take a look at Ubuntu Linux. You can get a free CD and take a look at it here:
http://www.ubuntu.com
Cheers,
-J
No one knows what vulnerabilities truly exist in alternative operating systems. We won't know until and unless they become as popular as Windows. There is absolutely no way to simulate a think tank of millions of hackers attempting to compromise an operating system's security. It cannot be done. So until all the hackers who spend their time trying to find holes in Windows, do the same thing for Linux, UNIX, and Macintosh, we will not know what holes may exist in those systems. Popularity is security's antidote.
JP,Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
You are correct in that the sheer volume of Windows users (compared to Mac/Linux) makes it economically advantageous for crackers to target those systems. To get the biggest bang for the buck, crackers want to infect as many systems as possible, and Windows is the answer to this problem.
However, there are a few important things to note:
1. While there may be more crackers looking for Windows vulnerabilities, it is monumentally easier to find vulnerabilities in open source (OSS) products... yet we don't hear about open source products being infected at anywhere near the rate of Windows. There's a reason for this. Since anyone can look at the source for OSS products, the "good guys" find the security holes before the bad guys and fix them early. (This is why you see an increase in Windows viruses shortly after a patch - it's easier to analyze the patch and see what it does, than it is to analyze the whole Windows OS. Crackers analyze the patch and then write their exploits to take advantage of things fixed in the patch.) With OSS products, everyone from the top IBM engineers to Bob at Bob's Corner IT Shack can look at the source code to find, report on, and fix vulnerabilities. When they can do this with Windows, we can talk about disclosure rates in a more balanced manner.
2. You're 100% correct in that we can't know what vulnerabilities there are until crackers target the platform. However, we can ascertain the risk based upon the quality of the design of the product. A 1979 Ford Pinto had a larger risk of explosion in certain collisions because it had a fundamentally flawed gas tank design. Similarly, Windows has fundamental design flaws that make it easy to write a virus that takes control of the system. We had hoped that with Vista, Microsoft would have taken the time to re-write the system from scratch. Unfortunately this is not the case; they tried this, but it was "too much work". So, with Vista, instead of a clean new OS design, we essentially have the Nth iteration of Windows NT 3.51 yet with a bigger ball of duct tape to parlay the image that it's more secure. (To be fair, it may be more secure - but all this protection requires such a powerful machine that even today's low and mid range systems won't run it comfortably.) It's interesting to note that in the early 2000's, Apple did completely rewrite the Macintosh OS from scratch - borrowing heavily from BSD - and they were able to preserve backwards compatibility. I'm shocked that Microsoft, which presumably has many, many more developers, can't do this. (Hint: the reason is, again, that they must concentrate more on preserving their monopoly and pandering to outside interests than creating a robust, secure operating system.)
So, in short, you are correct on some points... but it doesn't refute my original post, and it doesn't refute the exasperation made by the original poster initmating that, for the foreseeable future, Vista is not a good choice for small businesses.
Cheers,
-J
Well it was thought that firefox was infinitely more secure than IE, but as it grew in popularity, holes became known that started to rival IE in number, even finally passing it. A search on secunia returned 101 holes in IE, and 143 in FF.
Might be easier to find holes in OS products, but my point is no one is bothering. Hackers and virus authors (in other words, sociopaths) aren't going to spend their time to affect 10% of the computing world.
I haven't even tried Vista yet, so I can't comment on how good or bad it is. I never rush to use any brand new software, no matter who it's from.
Hm another fly by: Tired Of The Vista.
Wow, reading that made me very glad that I opted for XP Pro on my recent laptop purchase. I always stay well behind the curve on new software, particularly operating systems. For me it's always paid off. I only moved to XP a couple of years ago at most.
Microsoft Endorses A Fix For Something It Insists Isn't A Problem might be of some more interest to you.
I love Vista actually. But for those who use some of the other programs that the UAC might be an issue with, it can always be turned off.
Disable Annoying Vista UAC popups with TweakUAC (free!) might be the option for those.
Erg... so, the thing that supports one of Vista's biggest selling points (security), UAC... can (should) be turned off, therefore negating that biggest selling point? What does Vista have to offer that justifies spending the money on an upgrade if that feature is disabled?
Corey, have you run into the problem described in this thread? Why is it that, in these cases, a PC with Windows Vista performs far worse than a PC with 1/10 the processor and 1/10 the RAM, while doing an identical task? And, why is it that instead of fixing the root problem, Microsoft advises that this sort of performance hit is to be expected and provides "patchy" fixes that may or may not fix the symptom?
This is the kind of poor engineering I'm talking about...
Cheers,
-J
I've been using Vista since January and have had no problems at all with accessing files or e-mail, not even sure why you would have a problem there. We run Vista on our 3 home-networked PCs and use XP on the 2 laptops, also on the network. Vista security is just that - more SECURE.
For an individual experienced user it may be 'nag after nag', but lets face reality for a company with 10 inexperienced users who know very little about computers, networks and security in general, but rather know only how to use a few apps they need for work tasks?
UAC serves a big purpose - not all companies allow employees to do installs, upgrade and so on. They want uniform systems with limited 'as you need it only' access for employees. UAC helps IT keep employees out of the areas of the system they should not be in or accessing. Set up administration rights and correctly set user-access levels for employees will go a long way in making Vista easier to use on a daily basis in a small office setting.
On a side note, we have a somewhat curious 10 year old on our home network. 8 months after Vista and not a single issue with his system. We were formatting his system every few months with XP. With Vista, his system was configured, not as an administrator, but as a user with access to only specific areas of the system, and access to only certain parts of the network and files etc.
And this is what UAC and admin approval is for - security. NOT running in admin mode all the time is a smart and secure thing to do.
Its funny, because one benefit I have seen so far for general users in regards to the confirmation screen is not the screen itself, but rather how it is displayed. Remember those pop-up ads that were designed to look EXACTLY like an XP windows ok/cancel window? And people would THINK they were coming from Windows an not a malicious web site? Inexperienced users would click ok and get any number of Trojans or malicious software installed. The new confirmation windows, even if they appear frequently, are so hard to duplicate from Vista that this security issue no longer exists. You can't duplicate an entire screen fade on a person's desktop from a malicious Web site advert.
Security is important. I'd rather be annoyed by a 'nag' screen than, for example, have software installed on my systems that should not be there. :)