It's Official: Microsoft Vista Sucks. Just ask Microsoft Execs.

Here's a video of your typical ultra-l33t Linux geek, reviewing KDE 4. Watch this, you'll see what I mean :D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KRvBAwNji5A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KRvBAwNji5A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Quote from gnome:

How can you claim "XP's security is very weak"? If it were, we'd hear constant rants about it... but we don't.

Even the 100,000 Eters... many of whom would be first to bitch if they were getting corrupted in any significant way... occasionally a little something, yes, but not much really.

"1AM" now? Where are you, Eastern Europe or Russia?
More...

Yip, Russia... Siberia if more exactly. :D

Now as for security. My main point here is the following:

EVERY XP user who's in her/his mind needs to do at least one of TWO things to avoid getting malware on a critically important machine:

1). Use trading computer for trading only. Being behind a firewall, NEVER browsing a web, NEVER getting emails, NEVER using instant messaging, NEVER download any files other than completely reliable software from known sources.

And user then must have another computer to do everything "tabooed" above. :)

2). Additionally purchase anti-virus/malware software, which takes hardware resources and time for virus scanning, updating itself etc. And often costs money as well. Not just costs money, but you must REGULARLY pay for defense. Reminds me of Russia of 90's when businessmen had to "pay for defense" from criminals, who actually were the danger themselves. :D

Yet most Windows users pay this "tax" every year if they want to be more or less secure.

And even then, when you use some very powerful AV software, there are cases of intrusions.

And not necessarily a small keylogger is about to load your CPU or network a lot and slow down a system. Not at all... And of course it should be hidden and not visible as a process. I have a little bit of computer security experience and know what I'm talking about. But it'll just promptly send it's "master" all your passwords you type in including brokerage accounts as well...

So thank you IB for security device (dead serious here, it's the only decent protection which can be for Windows user).

So once again: I am not Linux fan, computer geek or something. Not at all. I've spent not more than 2 hours making Linux work perfectly on one of my machines (including time to burn an installation disk)...

And the only purpose of my posts is to share experience. Which is - not everyone is having problems with Linux. It DOES run and can be installed just as easily as Windows.

And what is more, as for security issues, not only Linux, actually any UNIX system (Mac, PC under Solaris maybe, you name it) is way more secure than Windows machine....

That is not to bash MSFT or whatever else, I simply have no reasons to do so, cause care less about the whole MSFT company, only about my machine working as well as it can with minimal efforts, maximal reliability and security, thats all.

And if something is working better for me than Windows, am I a geek? Hell no! It's simply the fact of life - Linux just works for me and perfectly handles all tasks and hardware I listed before. Should I visit a doctor? :D
 
One more thing I forgot to add:

people for some reason are OK with the fact that when they install Windows on a computer w/o OS, they most likely will need to separately install a bunch of drivers for their h/w to work. Install security software, then install a lot of other stuff to be able to do at least something on their new computer.

And it doesn't always work fine. Not at all, ET is full of threads like "my Zonealarm blocks everything" and Internet in general is full of users seeking solutions for their problems with Windows.

But as soon as people hear they need to do something to fine tune Linux (this also happens of course just as it does with Windows), they are like "a haaa, I knew it's crap and for geeks only!"... :D

Absurd, isn't it?

And Linux, BTW, has tons of software (Office, graphics, good FF browser etc.) installed TOGETHER with OS with no need for separate installation.... But sure it's for geeks only, not for "regular users" who install Windows, then drivers, then A/V, then s/w etc. etc... :D
 
At least there's no BSOD with Linux.

Let's all collectively admit it: Bill Gates lucked out when the PC came into mainstream life, as he had the only game in town in terms of a viable OS.

Microsoft has not been an innovator for a long, long time, and they've churned out turd after turd of an OS.

XP is one of their more successful and stable efforts to date, and Vista did little else but offer some eyecandy (as XP already had a 64bit version), and actually was less counterintuitive than XP, in many ways, while hogging far more resources than XP. Is that really progress?

Without its longstanding bundling agreements with hardware vendors, Microsoft would be called on the carpet for what it is: An uninspired, unimaginative, bloated bureaucracy of an organization, getting by on its past laurels when there was an absence of real competition.
 
This is all bs.

I was looking for something the other day and came across some techie threads back when XP was released.

Windows 98 was good. Win 2k was wonderful. Winxp was a resource hog.

LOL. Guess what never changes. Whinging about Microsoft. Oh ... yeah ... and whinging about IB. What's the common factor?



If you want to try a resource hog try Windows Server 2008, 64bit. Strangest thing is its also the fastest operating system available as long as you have at least 2G of ram.
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:

This is all bs.
More...

I tried telling my new Lenovo T61 that, with its 2GB of RAM, and its Penryn T8100 Core 2 Duo Processor (and after uninstalling all bloatware - I mean stripped down to the absolute necessities), and it wouldn't listen.

Damn computer.

It's happy with XP, though.
 
About year ago I bought closeout Compaq with 512 Ram and Vista for $220 at Office Depot then plugged in 1G kingston memory for $30.
Went to the blackviper and deleted all bloatware according to his instructions.
Now I have a third PC as fast and problem free as my XP PC's .
Can't tell the difference in speed at all.
 
Vista works ok, the speed is just fine with plenty of ram (4g, but 3 is all it sees in 32 bit versions). BUT.............................

Compared to XP PRO vista is like going to a childs birthday party every time you enter. Lots of pretty decorations, cake for everyone, ice cream and lots of presents that will end up in the trash can within a week. The child had a great party but come tomorrow he/she still is required to clean up their room and wash behind the ears, feed the dog and do chore

Thus the basic core elements are still reguired and those are no different in Vista than XP PRO. If i had it all to do over i would not have bought Vista Business..............had to try it. Now i have that EXTRA XP PRO sitting in the closet waiting to be installed if and when the birthday party never ends.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/15/windows-feature

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/03/oracle-caquires-clearapp

PS: This message was brought to you from Vista because Vista is for playtime pc's.

PSS: http://www.efinancialnews.com/tradingandtechnology/index/content/2451684344/restricted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top