What do you think? I mean, considering that well over 90% of the world is using Microsoft's OSes, is there any truth that it is indeed the best operating system?
I am curious to see what you all have to say.
Printable View
What do you think? I mean, considering that well over 90% of the world is using Microsoft's OSes, is there any truth that it is indeed the best operating system?
I am curious to see what you all have to say.
It's the most "mainstream" would be more appropriate. But let's wait for the troll to sway us from Microsoft products.
:goodpost:Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan
Like I've said before, Microsoft has done more than anyone else to promote and bring computing to the masses...Whether that be good or bad is your own decision to make.
i only use the telephone and the calculator.
oh...
i got the deadbolt on my backdoor :)
windows is the most fun you can have for the computer
all the games and emulators
learn music creation....teach yourself photoshop in 21 days :)
internet movies online greetings.......etc
however, if you are the type that only needs an os with business applications, secure payment banking and secure database I would have to stay away from microsoft and use something else..
but for play and fun and all things good, it is windows all the way baby
I wonder though Conan, if there were a better alternative certainly the number of users would be more balanced toward the better OS. I mean if it were total sh!te as some like to say, wouldn't there be less people using it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan
I am not a Microsoft fanboy... you all know I am into linux, have helped several users on here get help and run quite a few distros myself...
But when you think about it, what other OS is as compatible, as versatile and as easy to use as windows?
You'll be hard to find one that meets all those criteria... Linux (nope) OSX (nope) BSD (nope) Unix (nope)...
Is windows full of bugs and sometimes a pain the arse.. certainly.. Is it easy to jump on the windows bashing wagon? Definitely...
But would your computing be better off without windows? I highly doubt it.
Do I like windows better than other OSes... no. In fact, if I had to choose, it'd be either a linux variant, or OSX... (but that all depends on what I want to do as egghead said.)
Right, you've raised the points this discussion normally raises so I'll deal with them and raise some more. Unfortunately I can't refer to any of the threads I've started here because the a certain administrator lost his temper and deleted them dispite the fact that they didn't violate the rules :mad: I suppose I can understand him being mad when he discovered Microsuck so he's forgiven. Damn I shouldn't have provided a link to that forum by using smilies from it and I don't know why I used the same user name, oh well I'll live and learn.
Anyway back on track, I suppose I'll have to refer to the threads I've made over at Microsuck, be warned although I'll sensor any bad words in the quotes don't click on the links if you don't like swearing.
Is Windows full of bugs?
Well of course there are some bugs (like any software) but the NT kernel itself isn't that bad, read The Vandalisation of Windows and you'll see what I mean. Windows NT is loosly based on VMS because it was written by the same people - Microsoft hired a group of developers from Digital Equipment Corporation led by Dave Cutler, for more on this see the NT Wikipedia page.
I've run Windows with no anti-virus (or other 3rd party sercurity products) for I don't know how long and my system is as stable and responsive as the day it was when I installed Windows. For the method check out this post and this thread also makes good reading.
Infact I'll defend Windows if I hear anyone making unfair judgements about it and I sometimes play devil's advocate to over on Microsuck, often some members on will be forgiven for thinking that I actually support Microsoft.
I Windows the best OS?
Technically no, not for any purpose what so ever.
Mac OS is the best desktop OS - it has an excellant user interface and a brilliant security model.
The best server would be BSD.
Linux is a healthy comprimise between the two but each distribution will be differant, Slackware is probably best for servers while Ubuntu or Mandiva are the best desktops.
Another advantage with Linux is it's open source, this means if you know what you're doing you can fix bug yoursef and there are no undocumented functions (just try making sense of all the key in the Windows registry), this also makes it a low cost option. Linux is great because it's infinitely customisable and unlike Windows you can scale it to run on older hardware, for eample a 256MB 1GHz box might be set up with KDE, a 128MB 600MHz machine with GNOME, 64MB with XFCE, 32B with fluxbox and a text mode install for that <16MB crappy old pentuim 1. Software bloat isn't such a problem because you can recompile the kernel and remove the stuff you don't need although I've never needed to do this. I've had many flamewars with people about open source vs proprietary software, I don't have a problem with the latter but here's an agument I've had with someone who believes proprietary software is evil.
What advantages does Windows have over Linux/BSD?
It depends on your reasoning, I suppose running games is an advantage to the user but we can't look at this if we're judging the OS purely from a technical perspective.
The only advantages Windows has over Linux is OLE and DDE, you can insert objects from one progam in an other and drag and drop objects between programs, also all Windows programs have a common look and feel, note that Mac OS also hase these features. Windows' main downfall against Linux/BSD and Mac OS is memory management and the security model - I could go on about this more but I'm sure you're aware of this.
Has MS done anything good for the industry?
The is whole new debate, and I've discussed this here.
Does Microsoft innovate?
No, most of the features in Microsoft Windows and MS-DOS have been copied from other software like Mac OS or UNIX.
Some people say that Linux isn't innovative.
True Linux has copied from Windows and Mac OS (look at KDE and XFCE) but they have innovated and added new features, take BASH for example, that's copied from UNIX but they've improved the command line editing and short cut features.
Why does everyone use Windows then if it isn't the best?
Why doesn't everyone use a Linux OS for example?
Linux is in a bit of a vicious circle at the moment, people often don't use it because their hardware doesn't support it and neither does some of the Windows only software (for which there isn't a Linux equivalent) they use (mainly games and engineering software). Some hardware and software vendors don't start support Linux because (in their oppinion) it doesn't have a high enough user-base but how will it ever gain enough users if the industry doesn't back it?
This also affects Mac OS, BSD, ect. and is the only reason why I use Windows, Linux won't run the electronic simulation software I require for my work and there's no Linux equivalent either, this thread is also good reading.
Most people use Windows because they are unaware that any alternatives to it exist, and yes I do realize that this isn't the case for the people on this forum.:)
Not true, for Games there's no OS better than Windows. Sure Linux is getting better but it has a long ways to go.Quote:
Is Windows the best OS?
Technically no, not for any purpose what so ever.
Mac OS is the best desktop OS - it has an excellant user interface and a brilliant security model.
I'm a hardware guy so I need code to run the stuff, an OS, which OS doesn't matter as long as its efficient in the area's I use my PC.
My PC isn't used for work, its mainly used for gaming, music, movies. In this area I feel that Windows XP is the best OS. XP has the best hardware/game support bar none ;)
For people that mainly surf the net, online shopping, email and chat, I think they would be better served using Linux.
On the windows security issues ? I'm not one who blames MS, instead I blame society.
Contrary to popular Myth> MS security problems aren't the result of dummies who write crappy code. MS security problems exist because its the target of a society that raises children to be lying, deceitful, thieving scum bags who lack respect for fellow man !
:goodpost:
Nice post FG!:D
Well said FG.Quote:
MS security problems aren't the result of dummies who write crappy code. MS security problems exist because its the target of a society that raises children to be lying, deceitful, thieving scum bags who lack respect for fellow man !
I like Windows.
Well, I am using Microsoft OSs for 9 years now, I started with 95, ME, and now XP, I think it's the best so far, I mean I used Linux too, but it's isn't much of my kind, I mean it is a lot more complicated, and it's not made for casual users.
Windows, by far is the simplest OS. So that is the main reason why people like it.
Now, a lot of people loooove Mac, but because of the price, they have all moved to Windows.
-Kernel
It is true - Linux is a technically superiour OS to Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
Exactly, it depends on your perspective, mine one is a technical one and yours is a purely practical one. If you want to play games Windows is a more suitable OS than Linux for that particular application but it doesn't make it better from a technical perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
I agree but why do you think the game developers and hardware manufactures choose to develop for Windows over Linux/Mac?Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
Because Windows is more popular.
Remember:
I agree, I use Windows over Linux because it's compatable with the engineering software I use and you'll never catch me saying Windows is better than Linux. If MS didn't hava a monopoly over the market then developers would release games for Linux but this won't happen as I've described above - you should complain to the developers about this as it isn't Linux's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Linux is better in general the only reason people who know better use Windows is due to hardware and software issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
Good point and I'd like to agree but unfortunately this is the society we live in and MS haven't done a good job of protecting us from these people, in fact they're part of the problem by trying to dominate the market. In an ideal world we'd all use a mulitude of differant platforms, people could choose between Windows, Mac, Linux and BSD without having to worry about software and hardware support.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
I agree Windows XP is a vast improvment over the DOS based 9x/ME series, I remember when my PC used to BSOD every hour or so - very frustrating.Quote:
Originally Posted by lanken_man
That does vary a lot from distro to distro.Quote:
Originally Posted by lanken_man
Windows? simple? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by lanken_man
I can see your point but it isn't if you want to tweak it, just look at the registry and all those nice keys full of AEFE34D codes this is why people end up resorting to 3rd party software to fix problems. Linux might have a slightly steeper learning curve (yes I'm still cimbing it) but at least it's fully documented.
Now the Mac, now that is easy to use, I've only used one once before but it's very easy to pick up, shame about the price though but I'm told it's worth it because you get top quality hardware too - something I've been considering for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by lanken_man
In short most of the disadvantages people associate with Linux are due to its low market share but these won't go until the market share increases which won't happen due to the disadvantages created by the small market share - vicious circle again go damn it.:mad:
I would like to comment that I am waiting for a big game company to start releasing bootable game cd's built from linux.
i feel these new bootable cd's will be dedicated and built around the game and will offer insane frame rates on todays hardware.
quake 4 should have lead the way but instead opted to release quake 4 linux version install only
Now that would be very cool. :cool:
Also I've neglected to say that friends of mine have found Linux to be faster games wise, sadly I haven't found this to be the case since my graphics card doesn't support Linux properly - it's unaccelerated in Linux. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloone_Jonez
Those are some nice points, now let me counter them :D
Lets start with Linux, you said that it varies from distros to distros, well I tried Suse, Knoppix (booted), and tried to install gentoo(failure)
Now, you must admit that Linux isn't meant to be used by a student that researches, types using Microsoft word and that installs several programs that he intends to use for his studies, I'm not talking about big software that cost a lot, but about those small tools, for geometry, well, let me tell you, you can not install that on any Linux distros! Most of all the programs in this world are compatible with windows, that that just added a plus to windows OS.
Okay, now about the simplicity, I was maybe wrong about windows being simple, but the way you explain it, obviously it sounds complicated, I'm mean why would anyone, want to tweak their computer to the last minimal detail! You don't need to configure your pc that much, I mean even if you want to, simply go on some tips and tweak sites and get fully detailed simple tutorials.
Lastly, I would say that Window isn’t the perfect OS but it has its qualities, it is meant to be used by beginners, but also professionals. Windows has its own way of proceeding, but you cannot actually compare it to another OS because they are all different.
-Kernel
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
That's great, Linux is just the kernel, all the other software distributed with it forms the actual operating system - more distros = more choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
Did you read up on Linux before you decided to install (you've been a fool not too)?Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
Did you check that the distribution supported your hardware?
I take it you've asked a few questions on Linux forums about how to fix them?
It depends on the student (computer science students have written parts of Linux you know), by the way Word on Linux is AbiWord or OpenOffice Writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
Geometry ay?Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
Look at what a quick Google's revealed:
http://cinderella.de/tiki-index.php
Like I said - normally you can find a suitable Linux alternative.
Read above.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
That technically doesn't make it a good OS though.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
I suppose every operating system is complex at heart, the problem is Windows won't let you fix problems because it's so complex this is why normally the best thing to do when it goes wrong is re-install.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
Lots of people do.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
Windows might be able to be tweaked but Linux can be totally reconfigured and made to do whatever you want, and as I said before you can scale it to suit your system you can install a modern distro on fairly old hardware, now try installing XP on anything with less than 128MB of RAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
In a way you can't compare Windows to Linux the two are totally differant, Linux has a history of being a stable industrial strength OS and Windows well it's Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by lankan_man
I can accept you prefer Windows and I can see and I understand why, but the reasons why you prefer it don't make it a better operating system in general.
Okay...you got, me, good arguments, I wasn't able to counter those, but, I still love windows, I got my reasons.
You love Windows, fair enough, I know why you love it and it's fully understandable - each to their own I suppose.
Care to name the administrator who you accuse of deleting threads. Get your facts right before making assumptions. To my knowledge none of your threads have been deleted by anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloone_Jonez
BTW, Good thread Boogs. Reel him in. Hook,line and sinker. ;) :p
Sorry for jumping to conclusions, I'll pm you.
Hey guys,thought i would add my 2 cents in a bit.First about the above quote.I wouldnt say that it's impossible to install XP on a system with lower then 128MB of RAM.I once had XP SP1 running perfectly fine (although not quite as fast) on an 800MHZ duron with 64 MB of ram and it ran fairly well considering the limitations of the old PC.I guess it really depends on what you use your PC for.For general internet and e-mail usage and maybe the work of an avergae student using the program for school work it was fine.Quote:
Windows might be able to be tweaked but Linux can be totally reconfigured and made to do whatever you want, and as I said before you can scale it to suit your system you can install a modern distro on fairly old hardware, now try installing XP on anything with less than 128MB of RAM.
I actually prefer Windows as well probally because i have used it since the 3.1 days.It may not be perfect but windows can be a very good OS if you know how to take care of your system.I once had a copy of XP on my PC for 3 years straight without a single isuue until my HDD went bad in it.
A reinstall and new HDD later i am once again running XP SP2 without any issues.I guess when you get down to it,it all depends on your needs from your PC i have tried Macs,i have used windows and i have even tried slackware linux and Linspire.Never tried a linux yet though partially because i dont have the time to learn it.Sometimes the best route is to have a multiboot system using both windows and linux.
Alot of programs are written for Windows. It has become a vicious cycle. Since windows is used by such a large number of people. It makes sense to write programs for Windows. Since so many programs are written for windows, consumers find it easier to just use windows as games and software can be found readily for Windows.
No Operation System can be the best. Only popular.
Different strokes for different folks....:D
http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/9...strokes2dw.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by PIPER
I am aware of this, I think Microsoft recommends 128MB of RAM and an absolute minimum of 64MB, given that I've used XP on 128MB and it wasn't too snappy and XP uses more and 75MB RAM on my box when nothing's running I'm not sure this is realistic, I know let's ask Paul Thurrott (a long time Windows expert and MS lover).:)Quote:
Originally Posted by bhxtyrant
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...p_sg_clean.asp
And here's my favorite quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Thurrott
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sg.asp
Linux is differant, the minimum requirements listed are very conservative, for example they might give a minimum RAM requirement of 128MB and recommend 256MB when in fact you can halve this and it will still work. Vector 5.1 STD recommends 64MB and is faster than XP on this low spec machine and will run ok on 32MB, also XP was released (correct me if I'm wrong) back in 2001 and Vector Linux 5.1 was released this year, now I wonder which year had the most advanced hardware.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Paul Thurrott
Of course it does, Linux is certainly better suited to basic Internet and email usage than running games and it runs better on older hardware which is also best used in this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhxtyrant
I know Windows isn't that bad I've been running it for the last 6 months without anti-virus and it's not given me any trouble, but it's no where as fast as Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhxtyrant
I know your hard disk going down was probably not Windows related but a re-install is normally the only way to fix Windows when it goes wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhxtyrant
Slackware and Linspire are two completely differant ends of the spectrum, Linspire is very Windows like and Slackware is UNIX like, I personally don't like Linspire because you have to pay for all of the software for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhxtyrant
WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by bhxtyrant
You have - Slackware and Linspire are differant Linux based operating systems.
That's what I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhxtyrant
Thats about the furthest from the truth.....but hey usally it easier at times to reinstall windows, most of the time this can be done faster than installing drivers in Linux :pQuote:
I know your hard disk going down was probably not Windows related but a re-install is normally the only way to fix Windows when it goes wrong.
Sorry can't agree, more distros= more confusion. I have 10 distro's on my desk, which should I use ? Maybe I should spend the last years of my life reseaching forums, and just when I have a grasp the Distro changes/vanashes or a new one pop's up.Quote:
That's great, Linux is just the kernel, all the other software distributed with it forms the actual operating system - more distros = more choice.
Untill the Linux community gets off the cultist Distro of the Month fan club stuff it'll never be mainstream.
I say rally around Linspire, thats the Distro headed in the right direction, the most likely "mainstream" candidate.
See there you go, and if the majority of the Linux community feels the same I guess Linspire is doomed....there goes "mainstream" alternative to Windows down the drain.Quote:
I personally don't like Linspire because you have to pay for all of the software for it.
Tell me whats the real point behind all this, is it really a quest for "Free" ? Do you dislike MS because they charge $$$, because employees get a pay check ?
I really think I'm getting the point....Down with MS because "mainstream" should be Free.
Yep I'm ready to jump on that bandwagon, the heck with Global Economy and workers who get pay checks because software companies charge $$. Think of all the possibilities when Free opensource becomes mainstream, we can force all the hardware manufactures into cutting prices or we won't make drivers for them.
Maybe, just maybe, the best OS doesn't really come down to "Technically" superior, fast, stable, secure. Just maybe an OS that supports/creates Human livelihood/prosperity in an area that once was nothing more than a vacuum, is the best.
BTW before anyone takes me wrong, don't, I dual boot Linux & Windows, just got this Point/Counter Point thing going :D
It of course depends on the distribution, some are easier than others also it helps if you check that your hardware is compatable with it before you install.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
All distros are based on Linux which is UNIX at heart and once you've learnt one distro you can apply your knowledge to a whole host of operating syetems and I'm not just talking about Linux either I'm talking about BSD, Solaris and the more techy parts of Mac OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
Untill the Linux community gets off the cultist Distro of the Month fan club stuff it'll never be mainstream.
Linspire isn't the only nube friendly distro you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
You misunderstand it's not so much about free as in no $$$ but free as in fredom of choice. The problem with Linspire is they force to to purchase all of the software for their operating system from them even though some of it might otherwise be available for free or even for a smalller fee from a differant vendor. If everyone switched from Windows to Linspire then we'd be in a far worse situation than we are at the moment, lots of people don't have much of a choice but to use Windows but imagine not having a choice of software vendor.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
Yes but free as in freedom of choice not always price, many Linux distros cost money - Redhat, Suse , Mandiva and Vector Linux Deluxe alll have price tags.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
If Linux wasn't a profitable product then there wouldn't be some many companies making money from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
May I add offers people the freedom to choose - sorry Windows doesn't fulfil this criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
Good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
IMHO I think that if you are looking for more "mainstream" linux distros then you should probably look into Ubuntu (free) or Xandros (pay). I personally think (hope) that Ubuntu stands the best chance of becoming a more palatable mainstream distro to both newbs and hardcore users. Also IMHO I would say that this is the most "flame bait" thread I have seen on this forum. IMHO I categorize this with religion and politics, better not discussed at the dinner table:). Like or Dislike Windows not withstanding, I personally really like the choices that are out there in the Linux community as each has a very nice niche. My personal feelings about FOSS can be determined by my previous postings, while I do use Windows and my occupation is in large part dependent on its flaws, I detest all corporate attempts to spread FUD about open source and or trample consumer rights with EULA crap. Competition after all is what keeps prices low for the consumer. Anyway just my .02 cents, end Rant.
Badger
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1badger11
Flame bait?Quote:
Originally Posted by 1badger11
I'm sorry I have to disagree with you on this, I think we've being having quite a cizil discussion (even though I've dissagreed with some people not one insult has been exchanged), go check out some of the threads over on [url=http://www.microsuck.com[/url] for some real hardcore flame bait.:D
But yes I do see your point, this discussion often does end in flames and I'll try to leave before it gets anywhere near this point.
Well I wouldn't call Linux my religion but anyhow I agree, this debate is very political especially as a lot of it has to do with the US government allowing MS to get away with a so much crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1badger11
Yes, I remember you from the "How to run Windows without anti-virus" thread.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by 1badger11
What I meant was that this is a "flame bait" thread, not that anyone was actually flaming anyone else. It is for this reason that I like this forum, things don't usually degenerate (not that we don't have any degenerates hanging around here, myself included:)).
Badger
Yes it is the best OS. But times change.
Somebody said you can tweak Linux to do anything - like detect all the latest hardware? Like play all the latest games? Some people like to tweak so for them there is Linux, some people would rather spend that tweaking time playing the game or using the latest gadget - they need Windows.
As for Mac OSX - you're joking right?
If the rest of the industry were prepared to work with us we could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
Given the details of the protocol the hardware uses to communicate the the PC we could, in fact the Linux community are so great they've already written many drivers without this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
Given the source code for the games we could or a complete listing of the Windows API so we can improve WINE enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
Only because the industry follows Windows - it's a vicious circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
What's wrong with Mac OS X?Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
It's a very user freindly OS with UNIX kernel, this means most Linux open source software can be compiled for it with little or no modification.
I'm trying both at the moment, don't know yet which I like the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1badger11
I hope not, except for the short stint in politics TZ is Flame free, I'm sure we'll keep it that way :)Quote:
Also IMHO I would say that this is the most "flame bait" thread I have seen on this forum.
Like many things Curio says I have a hard time disagreeing with him, except when he said I was dyslexic :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Curio
if, if only, given the source
Youre still joking right?Quote:
What's wrong with Mac OS X?
It's a very user freindly OS with UNIX kernel, this means most Linux open source software can be compiled for it with little or no modification.
- this is the real world.
If planes were submarines they could fly underwater.
Enough is enough already......lmao.....AJ will carry this on till the cows come home.....jk......not....:p
Although the open source development model hasn't traditionaly been suited to games many developers have got round this by releasing the source code but keeping the data (artwork and sound) under a more restricted licence. This is becomming more and more popular because it means people still have to pay them to play their games while aiming them at the largest number of people, especially Linux where there aren't yet many other games to compete with. Here's a list of free (as in open source) games, rememeber you still have to pay for some of these, open source doesn't mean free as in no $ but freedom of choice for example you can choose which platform to run it under.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
Alright strictly speaking Mac OS X isn't a true UNIX but it's fully POSIX compliant meaning you can run most BSD/Linux software on it providving it's open source as you'll have to compile it under Mac OS X.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
Quote:
Mac OS X can run many BSD or Linux software packages, as long as they have been compiled for the platform. Compiled binaries are normally distributed as Mac OS X packages, but some may require command-line configuration or compilation.
I've made all the points I wish to make so I'll call it a day for now, (well unless someone else raises some new ones) - I don't want a flame war.Quote:
Originally Posted by PIPER
There's not going to be a Flame War @TZ, trust me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloone_Jonez
Anyone wishing to add points/comments to this thread may do so without the fear of flames :)
As long as the "points/comments" are of non-personal nature :)
OOOoooh that is sooo true!!Quote:
Originally Posted by FastGame
I have said it before and I will say it again, check Secunia for advisories on Linux/Unix and you will see that it really isn't that hot on security after all. People percieve Windows to be the insecure OS because it's what they use and the issues can and do affect them.
Even the cut down OSes they use in phones have been found to have plenty of holes - Security and Function are oposed. The more function something has the harder it is to secure.
nice debating going on in this thread
very interesting'
well done everone
Yes society is primarily to blame, in an ideal world we wouldn't have to bother with security, you wouldn't need to lock your front door or car but welcome to the real world. MS should do a better job in protecting us we shouldn't have to run anti-virus or compromise the functionality of Windows in order to configure a secure system. Come to think of it we should be able to choose which operating system we use without having to worry about software and hardware incompatibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
It depends on the application, take a server for example BSD will be the best, and Linux and Windows server 2003 are about the same but this is totally differant if you talk about the desktop/comsumer market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
Yes, Windows isn't inherrantly insecure, (I've posted these links before but I don't see any harm in reposting them) Windows has been Vandalised by MS in order to keep backwards compatability with old programs by giving XP insecure default install options. Windows XP can be set up with a reaonable level of security, I've done this before and I didn't even need anti-virus but often this compromises functionality - some programs require the registry and folder persmisions to be tweaked before they will run if at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curio
Windows CE maybe? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Curio
Seriously, security doesn't all come down to the operating system being run a lot is to do with the configuration, if you surf the net as root in Linux then expect to get owned and the same thing goes in Windows unless you have a darn good anti-virus and firewall. You're right about functionality vs security (the latter often compromises functionality too) , a well designed OS (UNIX) can be configured to be secure while remaining functional and a poorly designed OS (Windows) tends to compromised one over the other.
Not their job. Produce a quality product, yes. Save us from Societies miscreants, no.Quote:
MS should do a better job in protecting us we shouldn't have to run anti-virus or compromise the functionality of Windows in order to configure a secure system.
You can choose. Don't forget until recently if you wanted to run any Mac OS version you had to buy their hardware. Times are getting better for OS choices.Quote:
Come to think of it we should be able to choose which operating system we use without having to worry about software and hardware incompatibilities.
Give the people what they want.Quote:
in order to keep backwards compatability with old programs