flyuche:

i will wait patiently for windows 8. the windows OS  that would not require a third party antivirus

everbody!! look!!! Flyuche's opinion!! RUN!!!! TAKE COVER!!!

seriously, do you ever figure on stopping being a jerk? just take a day off, its healthy.

Ex Inferis:

everbody!! look!!! Flyuche's opinion!! RUN!!!! TAKE COVER!!!

seriously, do you ever figure on stopping being a jerk? just take a day off, its healthy.

no Ex. it baffles me that a company like MS would continue to churn out OS with intrinsic security vulnerability and needs third party app to make it secure.
do you have any antimalware app installed in your macbook?

flyuche:

no Ex. it baffles me that a company like MS would continue to churn out OS with intrinsic security vulnerability and needs third party app to make it secure.
do you have any antimalware app installed in your macbook?

Have pity unto others, whatever u do to others will be done unto you.

flyuche:

no Ex. it baffles me that a company like MS would continue to churn out OS with intrinsic security vulnerability and needs  third party app to make it secure.
do you have any antimalware app installed in your macbook?

no, i dont have any installed. i dont need to because as there are few mac users there consequently are few malware coders. by the time OS X hits critical mass and you have like 6 gazillion users with every new machine running the OS whther we want it to or not (ala windows) THEN i may start worrying about malware and antimalware.

besides, comparing windows to os x on security is not really fair; they utilize different foundations in how stuff works. in OS X, every file HAS an owner and permissions associated with the ownage. any single change or execution requires the permission  of the owner. the idea of a Super User (SU) limits the damage standard users can do with thier limited permissions. in windows, admins can delete key files in the system32 folder if they be so inclined.

though MS stole the concept of owner-permissions and applied it to Vista et al (UAC), its still weak because permissions ride on a top layer of the OS. and before the linux mob start yakking, the idea of permissions did not originate with linux: it began with UNIX, the parent of both OS X and linux.

so, the security of OS X partly stems from obscurity, and mostly from the way the OS handles ownership of resources.

having said all that, let me add that including a first party antimalware app may not be the best course of action (no OS comes with one by default); somethings are best left to 3rd parties. how else do you plan on having an ecosystem on your platform if you hog all the apps?

Ex Inferis:

@samunosuke

you crazy jap, there's a p0rn video on your desktop.

Eh hem*Clears throat*. What?

Ex Inferis:

everbody!! look!!! Flyuche's opinion!! RUN!!!! TAKE COVER!!!

seriously, do you ever figure on stopping being a jerk? just take a day off, its healthy.

CONJUNCTION

Ex Inferis:



so, the let me add that including a first party antimalware app may not be the best course of action (no OS comes with one by default); somethings are best left to 3rd parties. how else do you plan on having an ecosystem on your platform if you hog all the apps?

the antimalware "industry" for Windows is a billion dollar business.
the debate about the security of OSes (linux, Windows & OS X) has been on for a very long time. the seemingly more secure nature of Linux or Mac OS X is not because it attracts a few number of malware programmers, these OSes are by nature tight. well i won't go into technical here. Linux is deployed on a massive scale by large corporations at server and desktop levels. now, if i am a malware programmer, who should be my target? simple pc users like me and you who do no more than log on to nairaland to post?

flyuche:

the antimalware "industry" for Windows is a billion dollar business.
the debate about the security of OSes (linux, Windows & OS X) has been on for a very long time. the seemingly more secure nature of Linux or Mac OS X is not because it attracts a few number of malware programmers, these OSes are by nature tight. well i won't go into technical here. Linux is deployed on a massive scale by large corporations at server and desktop levels. now, if i am a malware programmer, who should be my target? simple pc users like me and you who do no more than log on to nairaland to post?

Who's more likely to leave credit card and bank details lying about? Big corporations or the simple PC users you derisively refer to?

The same people asking Microsoft to re-engineer their OS are those who bitched the most when Vista had compatibility issues with some legacy software. Y'all can't have it both ways.

Djcn:

CONJUNCTION

Agreed, the security business in IT is the issh now since we have alot of naive user populations. These security threats don't force themselves into our systems, we practically allow them come in by the downloads we run and the programs we give permissions to access our systems. What do you expect, (if you find someone who you could ride on to your wealth, then do so). That is exactly the point in IT today, so if you do not fall into the category of those who create disturbances on the net, join those that create solutions. Which ever way, you are making the cash.

Djcn:

Have pity unto others, whatever u do to others will be done unto you.

Supported! OS X is making so much wave in terms of security because it's not on the "popular opinion" poll of shipped with OSes. MS is owned by every Tom, DIck and his sister Harriet so why do you think vulnerability should be on the low? In any case, MS is coming up with their own antivirus, infact it's already in the market, but i'm listning up to hear the sound of court charges and counter charges against them by other security companies.

People of the land I ask again,has anybody made use of the touchscreen features of the OS?

you need a laptop with hardware that integrates the touchscreen features

@Double N

any Wacom-enabled tablet will do.

@Flyuche

no matter how tight you make your OS, the greatest threat has always been the human factor; most identity thefts result from insecure emails, phishing attacks etc. all these correlate with human discretion and caution. no matter how tight you lock an OS or an app, the errant employee looking for p0rn or woteva can still make nonsense of security.

besides, i dont buy into your opinion that OS X by default is tighter than windows: OS X comes with its firewall turned OFF, while windows comes with windows defender running at full tilt, firewall on on all but essential ports, and security center constantly nagging you for an antivirus app.

sure, a few companies set up servers on Linux, but where does the bulk of MS's income lies? OEMs and Enterprise Site licenses! corporations utilize linux to serve its online needs, but the workforce uses windows and office apps to do their spreadsheeting/wordprocessing/presentations/desktop publishings/Payroll/Taxes/CAD etc. consequently, mcrosoft sells a line of windows tagged ENTERPRISE or BUSINESS editions.

one thing you ought to know; malware on most platforms have ONE purpose, and consequently work in significantly the same way. these days most malware are browser/plugin reliant (be it activeX, Flash, Javascript) and thus the same exploitable holes are used in woteva platform because plugins and browsers work almost the same on almost all OS.

the days of port infiltration are almost over, so malware writers rely on downloads of p0rn, phishng, plugins, etc to infect. the biggest cybercrime now is not so much as netbots, its identity theft.

another thing, do you honestly believe there exists are certain class of people called "virus coders" whose singular purpose is to infect our machines and delete files or deny access to control panel? no, its the antivirus vendors who actually write and unleash these viruses. if their app is so good that it can block each and every virus and completely secure your system, why, they'd be out of work and go bankrupt!

o ri yên sô EX

I tried Windows 7 somethings last december ,  and my experience with it was anything but Meh, didnt see any remarkable diff btw it and vista. but then my time on it was very short and the version i was on was pre beta, i have not had the had the opportunity or need to try it again. However most of the feed backs coming from people including the founder of ubuntu has described it as great. so i guess its a major improvement over vista. will i be using it anytime soon ,  not a chance in hell ,  this is not because i dont think its good enough ,  windows is just not my thing, for reasons i have discussed in the past.

@Double N

any Wacom-enabled tablet will do.

nope not really . to take advantage of the touch screen capabilities of windows 7 the touch screen needs have ability to take multiple input at a time (multi touch) a feature which most of the wacom tablets arent capable of AFAIK
@Flyuche

no matter how tight you make your OS, the greatest threat has always been the human factor; most identity thefts result from insecure emails, phishing attacks etc. all these correlate with human discretion and caution. no matter how tight you lock an OS or an app, the errant employee looking for p0rn or woteva can still make nonsense of security.

true ,  in many cases a computer is as good and secured as its user, but often times most of the virus affecting windows today took advantage of security holes/ vonurabilities in the OS ,  the problem with windows is that it still uses this principle of open all then close ,  hence most systems ports are left open by default ,  for the sake of ease of use. (not sure if things have improved with windows 7/ vista)   annoyance aside ,  many analyst agree that vista is the most secured os ever to come out of Redmond . that is why most of the viruses ravaging windows today are xp malwares ,  Not sure if Conflicker affect vista ,  this goes to show that make an OS secured and u will reduce the problem of viruses to a minimum ,

The Idea that Linux is secured by obscurity downplays the amount of security measures that goes into the os ,  i have used both windows and linux extensively and i can say that linux has been built from ground up to be secured ,  security is built into linux ,  and when a security vulnerability is found ,  it is fixed almost immediately ,  the fact that its open source allows many eyes to watch the code and every security hole is blocked before a malicious hacker can take advantage, 

 

besides, i dont buy into your opinion that OS X by default is tighter than windows: OS X comes with its firewall turned OFF, while windows comes with windows defender running at full tilt, firewall on on all but essential ports, and security center constantly nagging you for an antivirus app.

Even ubuntu has firewall turned off by default ,  for home use ,  this shouldnt be a problem as long has every port is closed by default except expressly opened by an admin,  also the root user is disabled with further reduces the changes of brute force attack , 

sure, a few companies set up servers on Linux, but where does the bulk of MS's income lies? OEMs and Enterprise Site licenses! corporations utilize linux to serve its online needs, but the workforce uses windows and office apps to do their spreadsheeting/wordprocessing/presentations/desktop publishings/Payroll/Taxes/CAD etc. consequently, mcrosoft sells a line of windows tagged ENTERPRISE or BUSINESS editions.

you have spoken not the whole truth my friend ,  indeed most of MS money come from the enterprise user. but most of this enterprise users ( the serious one with mission critical files) use ther windows machine as client system to the linux database/ server ,  how many business run their database on windows? infact most companies have their entire networking stack built on linux, and this windows client can run happily and save because there is a linux firewall in the background making sure things are safe,  in the end the windows client is just a disposable frontend which can be easily replaced since it has no data stored on it ,  ,  The killer MS product for enterprise is not even Windows ,  its MS Office, Exchange, and AD ,  open office although very good and free, its doesnt get looked at because of the interoperability issues it has opening OOXML and doc files which are both not open standard ,  this is no fault of open office but MS way of keeping its self in monopoly

one thing you ought to know; malware on most platforms have ONE purpose, and consequently work in significantly the same way. these days most malware are browser/plugin reliant (be it activeX, Flash, Javascript) and thus the same exploitable holes are used in woteva platform because plugins and browsers work almost the same on almost all OS.

that is why a thing like web browser should never be too integrated into the OS, like IE is hardware into windows (dont know if things have changed with Win7) on Linux the browser is just a user land app ,  if its compromised its isolated and the rest of the system is safe,

forgot to mention, you really ought to try Win 7, its darn good.

Ex Inferis:

forgot to mention, you really ought to try Win 7, its darn good.

Again nothing against windows , windows 7 might be the best thing since slice bread to come out of Redmond , which is all well and good , but really am not a windows guy , the windows ways are not my way , windows wont give me the power, customization, freedom, and a sense of community i get from linux, it just not built that way ,
Am having a swell time on ubuntu and arch and there is now way windows can give me that type of power over my hardware that i currently enjoy on linux , I run a free (as in freedom) desktop and am loving every minute of it , in the end u use what works for u ,

@Ex.

that is why a thing like web browser should never be too integrated into the OS, like[b] IE is hardware [/b]into windows (dont know if things have changed with Win7)

what bigrovar meant ,which i understand, is that MS ingrained IE into core of the operating system. the bold words are "unedited error". but we get the point.
anyway for your reading delight.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

Microsoft created a system where any flaw in Internet Explorer could expose your Windows desktop to risks that go far beyond what you do with your browser. A single flaw in Internet Explorer is therefore exposed in countless other applications, many of which may use Internet Explorer in a way that is not obvious to the user, giving the user a false sense of security.

bigrovar:

Microsoft created a system where any flaw in Internet Explorer could expose your Windows desktop to risks that go far beyond what you do with your browser. A single flaw in Internet Explorer is therefore exposed in countless other applications, many of which may use Internet Explorer in a way that is not obvious to the user, giving the user a false sense of security.

Absolutely correct there. I had a virus attack through my internet explorer some few weeks back, and I never use it to surf the web.
Just that many applications that run on windows require Internet explorer to work.

@Inferis, bigrovar
Windows 7 is more optimized than Vista or Xp for touchscreens, end of story. There are a myriad of accessibility improvements that aren't tied to multi-touch alone.

bigrovar:

I tried Windows 7 somethings last december ,  and my experience with it was anything but Meh, didnt see any remarkable diff btw it and vista. but then my time on it was very short and the version i was on was pre beta, i have not had the had the opportunity or need to try it again. However most of the feed backs coming from people including the founder of ubuntu has described it as great. so i guess its a major improvement over vista. will i be using it anytime soon ,  not a chance in hell ,  this is not because i dont think its good enough ,  windows is just not my thing, for reasons i have discussed in the past.

I'm glad you finally admit that your hands-on review of Win 7 beta was critically flawed. Not only did you have a brief hands-on with it, you used it on a days old install with no control over what had been installed so far and you were comparing it with a vista installation on a different laptop. In science experiments you always need a control, which should preserve as much as possible the base conditions of the experimental hardware.
Glad you finally deign to admit the public's happiness with Windows 7. Did it have to take the Ubuntu guy's word before you finally believed?

don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to re-start an old quarrel. I have a friend (chxta) who feels the same as you do about OSS and i respect the fact that it's your personal choice. However, as a system administrator it is your duty to spend as much time with Windows 7 as possible so as to provide the best possible support. Windows 7 will be the best version of Windows EVER, and it extremely likely that that is what you'll be recommending to your clients that choose to stick with Windows OS.

PS: Windows 7 includes Powershell 2.0, an improved version of the original with better features. you can see details on the additions here
http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/networking/features/article.php/3801776

windows 7 has crashed on me.

bigrovar, maybe you should try to reduce the length of your posts small before this anti-bot ban you again. . .

flyuche:

windows 7 has crashed on me.

wat did u do?

bigrovar:

Microsoft created a system where any flaw in[b] Internet Explorer could expose your Windows desktop to risks that go far beyond what you do with your browser.[/b] A single flaw in Internet Explorer is therefore exposed in countless other applications, many of which may use Internet Explorer in a way that is not obvious to the user, giving the user a false sense of security.

the fault does not lie in the browser itself, it lies with Active X which micropwsoft uses mostly for WGA. the reason firefox is touted is because it can better handle such frameworks than IE.

remember i said earlier that most modern malware are plug-in based.

and

*dhtml:

Absolutely correct there. I had a virus attack through my internet explorer some few weeks back, and I never use it to surf the web.
Just that many applications that run on windows require Internet explorer to work.

i do not agree with this. sure, certain apps may call the browser in order to redirect for either tech support or registration purposes, but they always call in the *default* browser, which could be anything, not necessarily IE. this does not mean such apps need IE or any browser to function, just for auxiliary services.

I'm glad you finally admit that your hands-on review of Win 7 beta was critically flawed. nope Not only did you have a brief hands-on with it, you used it on a days old install with no control over what had been installed so far and you were comparing it with a vista installation on a different laptop.

how can u describe a user experience as flawed , i used something and came out to state my experience with it , how is that flawed , fine i used a pre beta version of vista, and it wasnt my system, and it was for a brief period , all of which i disclosed when i spoke my mind back then , it was an experience and i told it as it was , fully disclosing the circumstance. it would be flawed if i told a lie ,

In science experiments you always need a control, which should preserve as much as possible the base conditions of the experimental hardware.
Glad you finally deign to admit the public's happiness with Windows 7.

I would rather really on a user experience than a science experience , when it comes to things like an OS which is expected to be used on all types of hardware for various reasons by different type of users scientific experience are done in a controlled enviroments and as such not a true test of how rugged an OS is , A ship may be safe in the Harbor , but ships are not built to stay in Harbors

Did it have to take the Ubuntu guy's word before you finally believed?

well it took the fact that almost everybody that had something positive to say about it. I have not tried windows 7 BETA of the RC , i tried that pre beta and started my experience with it , for that i have no apologies

don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to re-start an old quarrel. I have a friend (chxta) who feels the same as you do about OSS and i respect the fact that it's your personal choice. However, as a system administrator it is your duty to spend as much time with Windows 7 as possible so as to provide the best possible support. Windows 7 will be the best version of Windows EVER, and it extremely likely that that is what you'll be recommending to your clients that choose to stick with Windows OS.

well u have a point there , and but then i work mostly with Linux , and would like to specialize in it , in case u dont know sysads are the most conservative people in the word , the focus is always on stability than features , so as a sysad i would prefer a tried and test OS like XP over Win7 not because i feel Win7 is crap but its too bleeding edge and might not work with legacy applications ,

PS: Windows 7 includes Powershell 2.0, an improved version of the original with better features. you can see details on the additions here

yeah i have heard nice things said about powershell and i even mentioned it in the preview post about windows 7.

hmmmm dis "war" no go end oh
tho interesting n informative all d way
carry on guys

@bigrovar
My point was, you were comparing Vista on your laptop to Windows 7 on your friend's PC.
When carrying out a test, you need to use the same base hardware to ensure there's a level playing ground. Got it?

texazzpete:

@bigrovar
My point was, you were comparing Vista on your laptop to Windows 7 on your friend's PC.
When carrying out a test, you need to use the same base hardware to ensure there's a level playing ground. Got it?

i am not sure he has vista on his laptop

texazzpete:

@bigrovar
My point was, you were comparing Vista on your laptop to Windows 7 on your friend's PC.
When carrying out a test, you need to use the same base hardware to ensure there's a level playing ground. Got it?

oh i see were u are coming from but FYI i dont have a vista installation on any of my PCs at least not since the last 2 years, , but like you said my experience can in no way be taken as gospel since !, pre beta, 2 not my hardware , it was a general comparison , thankfully a friend is here for a visit and has a windows 7 laptop with him , i hope to try it out and see what all the fuss is about ,

Ex Inferis:

the fault does not lie in the browser itself, it lies with Active X which micropwsoft uses mostly for WGA. the reason firefox is touted is because it can better handle such frameworks than IE.

remember i said earlier that most modern malware are plug-in based.

and


i do not agree with this. sure, certain apps may call the browser in order to redirect for either tech support or registration purposes, but they always call in the *default* browser, which could be anything, not necessarily IE. this does not mean such apps need IE or any browser to function, just for auxiliary services.

My friend its a known facts that the biggest flaw of Windows has been the way IE is hardwire into the OS , IE is more just a web browser on windows, its a component of the OS , up till vista u can install updates on windows without IE, the configuring network proxies (and infact many other network settings ) on widnows are built right into IE, hence when there is a flaw in IE it tends to goes deep into the heart of the OS , the reason why FF is more secured is that , its has little hardwiring into the OS (just like in linux) i can easily remove it and replace it with something else , IE can not be so easlily removed ,