not user error's, per se, but rather lack of user vigilance. But I imagine that's your point. The user will always be the weakest link in the security chain; the only thing that can be done about that is education.
The term is still user error.
But yeah, you've pretty much gotten my points across before I was able to post them.
I use XP because with my computer, I don't think 7 would help it run much faster. Once I can afford to get parts for a new computer, I would definitely get 7, but until then, XP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. The loss of Liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad." - James Madison
I've used ever version of the Windows OS since Windows 3.11 I think it was, and I think Win7 is the best one yet. Though I have made it to look like Win98 as much as possible as it was my favourite purely visually.
Just installed Windows XP on my friend's laptop because I lost my Windows Vista cd. Notbad though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MS Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit | AMD Athlon II X4 635 | 4.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 | BIOSTAR Group A880GU3 | ASUS VH238 | 1024MB GeForce GTX 550 Ti (Gigabyte) | 313GB Western Digital WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 | TSSTcorp CDW/DVD TS-H492A | Realtek High Definition Audio
Windows 7, I have two more computers. Both have Vista but one has is infected with a virus. I have been trying to install new Operating Systems on it (Ubuntu, 7, XP) but nothing seems to work. It either freezes or gives me an error of it cant load stuff from the current OS. I might get OS X dual booted with 7 (I don't know how though, any help?) along with Ubuntu. I love Vista, I grew up with it and its basically my "Childhood OS".
For the benefit of others I took a screenshot for posterity. I used my Linux install (Mint, which is based on Ubuntu) to do it, though I'm not sure how that would be relevant... (Aside from Mint eating Ubuntu for lunch in almost all areas, of course). Though it does show that I'm not a "one OS Pony" person who hates on Linux because they don't understand it.
It's actually sort of embarassing to me, as a Linux user; and this is exactly why a good portion of knowledgable Linux users purposely distance themselves from Ubuntu; this is the sort of marketing ******** you would never see on the project page of Fedora, Slackware, or Linux Mint, because beyond the Linux philosophy, they are developing with the key goal of making a good OS. Of course opinions differ on their success rate, but I like to think that in many ways they are spending more time adding stuff than trying to compare it to windows- the "real" Linux user usually outgrows the constant comparisons to Windows by the time their acne clears up. Ubuntu, however, gives off the vibe that ol' Markey's hopes it will eventually become profitable in a similar fashion to Mac and Windows; it reeks of the same marketing ******** as Windows and Mac OSX, only while being totally inferior and just not very good in general.
Anyway, let's try to sort through their "points"; I'll quote the text of each one here for an easier read:
"Personal Productivity Suite"
Now, undoubtedly, this is referring to Ubuntu's inclusion of Libreoffice- or OpenOffice, or whatever the **** it's called now. This has a few problems:
-Most people only need the word processor; and I've met very few people that actually need- or even know- what word is capable of. Most people would get by with Wordpad, really; Add to this a lot of new machines often include an Office install of some sort anyway. Also, this is hardly Linux exclusive- you can install libreopen****office on windows too.
"naturally free of viruses"
Why did this make me think of those shampoo commercials, where they go on about their "natural" ingredients? I don't know. but this doesn't even make sense. How is it "naturally" free of viruses? how is being "naturally" free of viruses different than being "generally" free of viruses or just "free of viruses". If we follow their exact meaning, than Windows is free of viruses too- since a clean install won't have any viruses on it. (Ironically, we cannot fully say the same thing for Ubuntu, which to my recollection installs a "monitor" tool that watches everything you do so that it can "index" or whatever the **** it does. This is pretty useful but the problem is it's universally inspectable just by connecting to a specific port on the computer Ubuntu is installed on. The only saving grace being that most routers and modems won't let external clients connect, but it's still downright silly. I believe they removed it after the fuss it caused, but damned if I remember which version. The fact they ever added it in the first place- without even telling people, no less- is what shakes my faith that they are really working in the best interest of their users. (well that and their inability to actually keep their GUI consistent across versions). Obviously they mean it's less prone to infections, but again, that's not because of some inherent security that exists in the Linux OS, it's just not targeted so there is very little malware in the wild for it. If enough people were to start using it, it would become clear that the standard battle cry of the uneducated Linux zealot who calls themselves a security expert because they can install SELinux using a package manager is a load of tosh, to use a British colloquialism for no discernible reason.
What makes this funny is that it also puts a checkmark under "What's Included" for Antivirus... but it doesn't include a AV. Looks like their inconsistency even leaks into
their marketing FUD.
"Firewall: Ubuntu get's a check, Windows is marked as "Basic"...
What is so basic about windows firewall, in comparison to Ubuntu's? Either way, I don't know about anybody else, but dicking about with firewalls is not something I make a business of doing. just open a port, set a rule, and carry on. Hell most of the time I can't be ****ed to bother with <that> and just disable them entirely because I find them (software firewalls, anyway) sort of useless.
"Archiving/Compression software" Ubuntu get's a checkmark, Windows get's a "Basic"
In this case, they are right. But they are wrong for those right reasons. The average user has trouble understanding File compression in a lot of cases; Even the windows applet for compression can confuse the **** out of people. The Linux utilities and GUI tools (Archive Manager, iirc) are very useful and support several formats, but considering that .zip is almost universally ubiquitous and the use of more esoteric formats like .7z and .rar are more prevalent on "warez" sites than anywhere else- and the fact that you can easily install freeware and shareware programs to use those files on windows anyway, this just boils down to "lolz we include more software" which is a pretty dry argument given the prevalence of internet connectivity and how easy it is to google for "compression software for windows" and download one of the products listed.
Again, check for Ubuntu, x mark for Windows. Fair enough... but again, this is just the same dry argument of "lolz we include moar"; Personally I use Foxit on my Windows systems, which is a free download; same with Adobe Reader itself, which is also free.
"Browser Ubuntu "Multiple Choice" Windows "Single Choice"
What? Ubuntu comes with one browser. Windows comes with one browser. You can install other browsers on both systems. There is no difference between them; Windows doesn't force you to use IE. This is misleading at worst, and an outright lie if you want to get right down to it. (And, again, people wonder why <real> linux users just facepalm when people come in going "UBUNTU IS THE ROXOR")...
And this doesn't even account for the versions of windows that provide a "choose your browser" dialog at installation. Ubuntu doesn't offer that, it just gives you firefox. Multiple choice means you can download other browsers- but you can do that with windows as well, so they are just talking out their ass.
"Messenger software" (Check for Ubuntu, none for windows)
OK, make up your ****ing mind. Messenger used to come with windows. At the time- Ubuntu's marketing materials- and I ****ing kid you not- called it "cruft"- and now it's another marketing bullet point? come on people, it can't be both.
Backup software: Ubuntu Check- Windows "basic"
Yep, the Windows backup software is pretty basic. On the plus side, however, it does work, which is what I would be looking for if I wanted to use backup software.
They also say a few other interesting things:
Looking to escape the cycle of endless Windows upgrades?
Evidently, they are very bad at math; a 6 year gap between XP and Vista, and an average of 2-3 years other than that for windows. Ubuntu releases a new "upgrade" every 6 months. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that they are talking out their ass with this one.
No licence fees. No subscription costs.
Unless you want real support, of course.
So, yeah, if you want to be a hipster, but don't want to associate with Apple for whatever reason, you can go with Ubuntu; they use similar marketing tactics. Of course in apple's case, while they might stretch the truth a little for their purposes, they don't tell downright lies about their product; Same cannot be said for Ubuntu.
Actually, that's not true, the same could be said of Ubuntu.
It would just be a lie. But what's another one heaped on the pile, eh?
I have 3 computers:
-one Self Builf of Spare parts with 4 Gb Ram with windows XP SP3 (minecraft goes slow)
-Imac 21,5 with 4Gb ram with windows 8 consumer preview,Snow Lion and Windows 7 Home Premium (minecraft goes fast!)
-5 years old Compaq Laptop with 2 Gb Ram And windows 7 ultimate (notice that the laptop os is pirate) xd (minecraft goes fast-slow)
conclusion say goodbay to XP
My computer has 8GB of RAM, before I got a dedicated graphics card I used the Intel integrated graphics and I got about 15FPS on minecraft on short, after I got my dedicated card I get 60+ far. Still 8GB.
The CPU and GPU have more to do with overall performance, I suggest you learn that.
The os has nothing do with how well minecraft runs.
If I recall correctly my old ASUS F5VL laptop running Vista on 2GB RAM never got over 60% RAM usage, I was able to multitask alot on that laptop. Too bad it must be filled with dust; it get's hotter than boiling water when on for an hour, litterally. I can't believe that that machine has never overheated...
That's odd. I'm using vista with 2gb of ram, and my ram usage is never BELOW 50%. Also, my computer doesn't get too hot (but it does get kinda hot...)
I am currently running Vista, I am waiting until I can afford to buy a bigger HDD and I will then make the switch to Windows 7 64 bit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has one and some stink, now if someone says your armpits stink it isn't very polite to go rubbing it in their face, it isn't going to make them say yours doesn't stink it'll just make them dislike you and your armpit even more. Remember keep your armpits and opinions respectful.