for the same reason that small "smart cars" are also being built
VERY bad example There is choice...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Vista to be discontinued in 2008?
- Thread starter HiTekJH
- Start date
for the same reason that small "smart cars" are also being built
VERY bad example There is choice...
have you seen the obesity rates for this country? LOL
2/3 of the american population is obese. 4/5 of those use apple computers. connection? i think so...
If what you say were true, we would still be using K's of RAM.
But what you say is not true, and is why technology has advanced to include GBs.
Demands increased.
Granted, you could make a super lightweight OS, and have the HUGE majority of your system resources to those apps.
However, why do that when the OS can do the same functions? Decrease the need for even needing applications, and come up with a nice all-in-one package.
That reduces applications to what we largely see now... Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc... additional TOOLS rather than needs.
Every OS I am aware of, that has minimal work required to get it working in a desktop environment, has increased resource use... People are just demanding more from computers, and the needs will always grow.
And this would be where some of your credibility goes out the window...
Before I could even begin to reply to that statement, I would need to know YOUR definition of a "secure network".
What is one huge component of a "secure network"??? The workstations!!! And where does workstation security start??? That's right...
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
Things that make you go.....hmmmmmmmm.
If Win95 would be stable and drivers were still available for it I'd install it in a heartbeat. It's lightning fast on current hardware. I tried it on a Athlon XP 1400 once and it was insane. Unfortunately there were no chipset drivers so it kept on crashing.
TwentyFour
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 116
I am sure you will get CG-Movie quality graphics that Crysis brings on your Local Linux Distro. Oh wait, you won't! ability to run 6-8 games is nothing. Vista plays all the games I throw at it, be it old titles (Deus Ex: IW, Max Payne 2 etc) or cutting edge ones like Crysis Beta or MoH-Airborne. Linux is good is for basic computing but for anything else, it's still far too complicated and will remain that way unless all Linux distros merge and become a single entity. which won't happen unless it becomes close sourced. when that happens, your lovely linux will lose the only thing going for it, which is Open Source.
They resources are dedicated to applications and not "Useless" crap. SuperFetch anyone? Besides, when I buy 4GB Ram and a Quad Core processor. I buy it to be used and not sit around idling.
@leoftw:
How did you manage to run PG2? are you on Vista x86 or x64? I can't get it to run in Vista x64
TwentyFour
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 116
LOL
I've been using Azureus's SafePeer plugin personally. It uses the same blocklist as PG2. Though I am unsure whether it actually blocks anything or not. Guess I don't really want to find outI found this version of PG2 for Vista
http://forums.phoenixlabs.org/showthread.php?p=103367
its in beta testing but it works perfect for me.
http://forums.phoenixlabs.org/showthread.php?p=103367
its in beta testing but it works perfect for me.
I really like Vista x64. It has been problem free for me. It really likes ram but hey what you were paying for 1 gig 5 years ago you can know by 4 gigs so whats the problem. Personally I believe it is light years ahead of XP during it same stage of deployment. Once developers get off of their anus and write software to take advantage of x64 instructions people will be saying Vista is the best thing since sliced bread.
Ironicly the people who crap on Vista are the ones who are too damn cheap to buy it. It's far more stable for god sakes. LOL technology gets better and faster every year I kinda doubt a 4 year old OS is going to keep up haha. Thats like saying well I got a V8 in a Geo Metro the performance is awesome Shit any new hardware can make XP fly, like I was saying in another thread a P133 can run XP so that isn't saying much.
Shit any new hardware can make XP fly, like I was saying in another thread a P133 can run XP so that isn't saying much.
Jester1550
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,600
Don't know how much more stable vista is. I've been running it for months now and although I'm NOT calling vista unstable... I'm also not saying that XP is that horrible either (been running xp for years).
I will say I have to agree with slats' post above, once 64bit is the norm vista will fly.
I will say I have to agree with slats' post above, once 64bit is the norm vista will fly.
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
I never really had stability problems with XP either. But, one thing I have noticed is that I have fewer performance issues over time under Vista. I tend to leave this box up most of the time and don't reboot or shut down for days. Under XP, I had to periodically reboot to get game performance back after running EQ2. This isn't the case under Vista for me. Its performance and reliability has just been better than XP which was never bad to begin with.
I don't know if this particular game is affected, but I'd like to point out a general issue with systems that have been running for a long time.
Windows has a function that returns the number of milliseconds since bootup (GetTickCount() or timeGetTime()).
A lot of software uses this to base their timers on.
In some cases, these timers will be used for floating point arithmetic, such as 3d animation.
The problem here is that they usually use single precision floats, which have 24 bits of precision. A system that has been up for about 2-3 weeks will have such a large value returned by the function that you are running out of precision, and calculations get unstable.
This can result in jerky animation. A wellknown offender is 3DMark2001 (back in those days, I had a Windows 2k and later XP box that I always hibernated, because at the time it was much faster than doing a full bootup, and especially opening the applications I wanted aswell... since 2k and XP were very stable OSes, I usually reached uptimes of months this way, because the OS just continued counting where it left off, when it came out of hibernation).
As far as I know, Vista has no changes to this particular functionality, so it will not solve the problems (technically they're not an OS problem but a design flaw in the application. The developer should have foreseen that the number could reach very large values, and compensate for this, eg by not using the value directly, but adjusting it with a base value, eg at the start of the application, or the start of a new level, life etc).
A related problem is timers based on the timestamp counter register, a feature that has been around since the Pentium, which counts the number of clockcycles since powerup. The problem here is that software often assumes that the clockspeed is constant, and the cycles can be used as an absolute measurement. This is not true when eg power saving features are enabled, and clockspeed is reduced. A related example of this is AMD with their 'dualcore optimizer', which keeps the timestamp counter of all cores synchronized (Intel doesn't need this patch, because all their dualcores are synchronized by design).
But I am not being defensive and am not a Linux fanboi. I have already stated I use Linux for the internet and XP for gaming and don't have much use for Vista right now. I do have Vista installed though. How does that make me a defensive Linux fanboi?
are you serious? i couldn't give two shits about what you use on your computer. but stop acting like its such a horrible process to secure a windows system for basic use. just think if it was the other way around...you'd be bitching how unsecure linux is if it had 90+% market share. then we'd all be saying, hey, its this easy to secure it and it doesn't slow things down or get in your way. then you'd be calling people fanboys again.
FFS, I've already said I use XP and Vista too. But I use Linux for the internet because I don't have to babysit it with security scanning all the time. Sure, market share has a lot to do with it but that is good for me. No numbnut is going to waste their timing writing spyware for Linux. Bonus! Even still, I do take a few precautions on Linux too. Thing is, Linux already had the security measures in place that Vista is now enforcing. XP and Win2K has user account protection too but most people ran under admin anyway so now Microsoft is trying to enforce it to make them see the light.
I said I like to use Linux for the interent because I don't have to screw around with security software and nect thing I know someone is jumping down my throat saying Windows isn't all that much of a pain to secure. It's not a pain but Linux is far less of a pain so I choose it over Windows for internet usage and I transfer files from it to Windows when I need them with a thumb drive.
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
Just read an interesting article: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/scrt/CD0B9D97EE6FE411CC25736A000E4723
Maybe screwing around with security software under linux isn't such a bad idea after all.
My point? An unsecured computer is an unsecured computer no matter what the operating system.
As I Lay Dying
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 975
a bunch of community operated server on ubuntu where comprimised because they were not up to date on security issues. Its not security software that needs to be added, you need to stay up to date on security patches. The same is true for bsd and osx and windows.
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
Yep, that's my point. I've met a few people that weren't the most technical that assumed because they weren't running Windows that they were safe. They just ignored the threats never even bothering to patch very often because they weren't on Windows.
Exactly... Good way to put it!
Acer_Sheep
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
I think vista is a fully new Os that have a lot of new and cool features and it will be a standard OS for a few years...
I think vista is a fully new Os that have a lot of new and cool features and it will be a standard OS for a few years...
s/for a few/in a few/
In my case the pain is that it runs in the background, and compromises my performance.
At work I can't control it... I once worked at a place where they had a scan that was scheduled every wednesday morning. I might aswell just not go to work that morning, because it was impossible to properly use Visual Studio.NET while that scanner was running, not on those boxes anyway. VS.NET was too sluggish to actually get work done, and because it had so much trouble handling both VS.NET and the full system scan, it took ages to finish the scan aswell.
I don't run any AV at home. Never have, never will. I've been running NT-based Windows since the mid-90s, and they just don't get infected easily when you set them up properly. Even if they do get infected, it's hard to cause any real damage. I just keep my system up to date, and do a manual scan when I see any kind of suspicious behaviour (I use the Trendmicro online scanner). Haven't had a virus in ages. I think just keeping your system up to date, using a good firewall, and not opening every damn thing you find on the web or in your emails pretty much cuts out 99% of all virus attacks.
My point? You don't NEED AV on Windows either, as long as you're careful. It's not like your box gets infected just by booting into Windows. The risk may be greater than on other OSes, but still it's quite small if you know your stuff. Small enough to not need any AV running 24/7.
I have never gotten a virus either (except when I intentionaly got one as an experiment I was doing), but I still run a scanner. I can spare the performance penalty of real time protection nowdays since I am not running a P133 anymore.
I do too many important things on this computer to risk having some malware stealing my info or destroying my data, the risk just is not worth the 3% load on one of my CPU cores.
I do too many important things on this computer to risk having some malware stealing my info or destroying my data, the risk just is not worth the 3% load on one of my CPU cores.
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
If you honestly truly believe this, then you might want to do some reading on the different "attack" vectors that virii have been using. You may be a very safe driver, but that doesn't mean you'd take the airbags and seatbelts out of your care, would you? Same principles apply. Don't think you are safe in the future, simply because you haven't had one in the past. A gambler isn't guaranteed a win, just because he/she has only lost before. A driver isn't safe from an accident, simply because they haven't had one in the past. Virii are more dangerous and more creative as each day goes by, so the argument against a scanner weakens everyday as well.
I'm an expert assembly programmer myself. I know a thing or two about how to exploit a system. I'm perfectly aware of the risks, and I am willing to take the chance.
I don't think I'm safe, I just don't think the risk for me is worth running garbage on my PC.
Thing is, most virii depend on tricking the user to run the code. I'm safe from those.
Then there's virii that exploit some bug... But most of those exploit bugs that have already had patches released. They merely exploit the fact that a lot of people don't update their systems. I'm safe from those.
That leaves only a few potentially dangerous virii. Since my box isn't directly connected to the internet, I cannot be exploited by bugs in certain Windows services, like the RPC bug a few years ago. I am safe there.
The most dangerous virii for me are the ones that are embedded in data files and such. But I don't work much with foreign data files, so again, I am safe there.
The chance that I actually use a particular program with a bug that is being exploited by a virus, and has not been patched yet, and I happen to open an infected file... well it exists, granted. But it's too small for me to bother running AV software 24/7 (and it gets smaller everytime, with Windows getting more secure, with features like DEP and sandboxing certain applications).
After all, most virii are pretty harmless when they infect you at first. They may try to spam (but my firewall should protect me from that), or they may try to search for personal info (but I don't keep that on my PC). I will probably notice that something funny is going on well before any actual damage occurs, and remove the virus.
Trust me, I know very well what goes on inside a PC, probably better than you... It's my profession after all (heck, I've actually written some patches for exploits, and some virus removal tools). Simply *because* I know what goes on inside my PC, I don't see the need for AV software.
To go with your analogy of driving a car: You know accidents happen, but that doesn't stop you from driving a car, does it? The risk is small enough to take everyday. Everyone knows that the next time they get in their car could be their last. But chances of that happening are too small to give up the benefits of traveling by car.
The same goes for me. I know I *could* get infected (then again, even with AV software you could), but chances of it ever happening are slim, and even if I do get infected, chances of any actual damage happening are even more slim. And even if some damage is done... well, I backup my important stuff, so I can restore my system without too much trouble.
And no, I'm not running a P133 anymore either. I'm running an E6850 with 3 gb of memory and a raid0 disk system. It doesn't get that much faster than this. But I bought this much power for a reason, and that reason is not wasting it on AV software. Which brings me back to the original point I was making: I don't need to run linux or some other OS to be safe enough from virii to do this. Windows XP or Vista do just fine.
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
It's nice to see you are above making wild assumptions and dishing out insults. If you want to run with an AV scanner, that's your business, and since your computer isn't on my corporate network, I can't force you to do anything. That is your right, but for the love of god, don't stoop to the fanboy levels here and start insulting people for following good operating practices.
If your above statements are all true, surely you'd notice that quite a few AV scanners, even free ones, wouldn't make a noticeable difference in PC performance, even if you attempted to test as such.
In terms of not running AV software, I think if you are both a power user and careful, it can be done, so I agree partially with Scali here, but I still think running AV is a more sensible option, like DeaconFrost says. In terms of how much performance you lose when you use AV software, I definitely agree with DeaconFrost. Try NOD32 and you'll see how light it is on the system, even on a really old machine.
I also don't run AVS on my desktop XP install. I perceive the risks to be smaller than the annoyance of having to install the software in the first place.
Also, my desktop is really slow and I have no intention of upgrading it for the foreseeable future.
Also, my desktop is really slow and I have no intention of upgrading it for the foreseeable future.
God forbid it... Mine is using a whole 1.5MB of RAM and 1/5 of a percent CPU usage.
Fact of the matter is, people might *think* they have safe system, but the really bugger virii are the ones that don't show themselves unless the computer is not being used. Then it starts transmitting all of your logged bank account information over the internet.
IMO taking 10 mins (because that is ALL the "screwing around" you have to do with it- on a modern system the resource usage is a non-issue) is entirely worth it.
Wouldn't wearing a seatbelt, using your airbags, AND driving carefully minimize that risk even more?
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,190
Vista works really well on the 2 machines I have it installed on EXCEPT for one tiny little thing:
Wireless networking refuses to work properly when I enable security so I have to resort to mac address filtering and limiting the available IP addresses to the # of machines I have.
EVERY SINGLE TIME MS releases a new OS there is always the crowd that moans and groans about how the new os sucks. Vista is selling like hotcakes.
Wireless networking refuses to work properly when I enable security so I have to resort to mac address filtering and limiting the available IP addresses to the # of machines I have.
EVERY SINGLE TIME MS releases a new OS there is always the crowd that moans and groans about how the new os sucks. Vista is selling like hotcakes.
Yea, but I only use Linux for fun internet browsing. I do my banking and internet shopping on Vista.
Also, I do have AV on Linux but only scan files I might suspect and don't have it running all the time. I also use noscript, flashblock and adblock in Firefox on Linux .I've seen lots of problems with false positives (it even claimed that some of my own code contains a virus), some scanners popping up windows right in the middle of what you're doing, breaking you out of fullscreen applications (which can be VERY dangerous... Sometimes it happens in the middle of typing something, and that can be very dangerous.
I may just press space, enter, or some hotkey, and make some kind of choice that I didn't want to make.
Also, perhaps you've never worked with any software development, but usually you work with dozens of small files. When they are all scanned on every use, just editing files with IntelliSense or compiling a project can take considerably longer.
So I don't want any kind of scanning going on for various reasons. In short, the cure is worse than the disease, in my case.
I can still manually scan my system when I see fit, without actually having any kind of software installed. But I decide when I scan.