PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7 = Windows Vista Sp2?


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

bacon12
10-01-08, 02:39 PM
I know XP was a security nightmare on release, but I haven't found anything other than a tracking cookie on Vista in almost two years of use.

There are unix/linux rookits, they just don't spread because of the lower user base as with windows. The user base is also a lot smarted than the average windows user about security.

zoomy942
10-01-08, 02:42 PM
I know XP was a security nightmare on release, but I haven't found anything other than a tracking cookie on Vista in almost two years of use.

There are unix/linux rookits, they just don't spread because of the lower user base as with windows. The user base is also a lot smarted than the average windows user about security.

mostly correct. however - they dont spread becasue you have to have sudo permissions to run anything at the system level in linux

bacon12
10-01-08, 02:46 PM
Yes the core or /root won't be infected unless you give permissions but the /home or user files can be easier than you think. ;)

Sazar
10-01-08, 04:07 PM
i dont completely agree with you on this one.

With any Windows Install, everytime you surf the web or get an email you are putting it at risk. therefore - wth Windows, you may be leaving it alone as you said.. but just interacting with your PC puts you at risk.

But if you don't open the pop-ups at those sites or install addons or open emails, if you just LEAVE IT be, you'll be fine. :)

i.e. if you leave it alone :smoking:

crainger
10-01-08, 04:42 PM
i dont completely agree with you on this one.

With any Windows Install, everytime you surf the web or get an email you are putting it at risk. therefore - wth Windows, you may be leaving it alone as you said.. but just interacting with your PC puts you at risk.

Not ANY Windows install, Vista is fair safe for now. However any one with IE as the default browser in conjunction with an average user is trouble. I recently helped a family member remove spyware on their PC for like the 3rd or 4th time. I said enough is enough and threatened to put on K9 to block all the sites where they were getting this junk. I had support from half, threats on violence from the other. So I put Firefox on and said use this, if you don't I wont help and you'll have to buy a Mac or install Linux. I think they plan to get a Mac soon. ::D:

zoomy942
10-01-08, 05:03 PM
But if you don't open the pop-ups at those sites or install addons or open emails, if you just LEAVE IT be, you'll be fine. :)

i.e. if you leave it alone :smoking:


HAHAHAHAHAHA. fair enough.

"Windows booted up! step away!"

zoomy942
10-01-08, 05:04 PM
Not ANY Windows install, Vista is fair safe for now. However any one with IE as the default browser in conjunction with an average user is trouble. I recently helped a family member remove spyware on their PC for like the 3rd or 4th time. I said enough is enough and threatened to put on K9 to block all the sites where they were getting this junk. I had support from half, threats on violence from the other. So I put Firefox on and said use this, if you don't I wont help and you'll have to buy a Mac or install Linux. I think they plan to get a Mac soon. ::D:


lol and true - but remember how mjuch CPU power you have to waste simply to be safe from all the bad things. what a silly way to use a computer. you have to put it in PC jail before you even go outside.

glObalist
10-01-08, 05:10 PM
lol and true - but remember how mjuch CPU power you have to waste simply to be safe from all the bad things. what a silly way to use a computer. you have to put it in PC jail before you even go outside.

If you weren't such a linux fanboy you'd probably know how anti-virus and other malware protection works in Windows. I.e. virtually zero CPU overhead. WTF are you talking about? I demand swift reply with screenshots of this terrible CPU usage you're mentioning.

If anything, my ESET Smart Security is wasting about 45MB of RAM, but zero CPU.

zoomy942
10-01-08, 05:15 PM
If you weren't such a linux fanboy you'd probably know how anti-virus and other malware protection works in Windows. I.e. virtually zero CPU overhead. WTF are you talking about? I demand swift reply with screenshots of this terrible CPU usage you're mentioning.

If anything, my ESET Smart Security is wasting about 45MB of RAM, but zero CPU.


settle down there tiger. I have been a windows admin for over 10 years. i think i know a tad bit about how antivirus works.

no need for the harsh attitude.

bacon12
10-01-08, 05:16 PM
I demand swift reply

:rofl:

wczimmerman
10-01-08, 05:59 PM
If you weren't such a linux fanboy you'd probably know how anti-virus and other malware protection works in Windows. I.e. virtually zero CPU overhead. WTF are you talking about? I demand swift reply with screenshots of this terrible CPU usage you're mentioning.

If anything, my ESET Smart Security is wasting about 45MB of RAM, but zero CPU.

Ok, I'll bite on this one:

I've been a Windows admin (years ago) and a UNIX/Linux Admin for more than 10 years now working for Fortune 500 companies and currently for a VERY large energy company. Now that my credentials are out of the way, let's talk...

1. Zero CPU overhead for ANY program is not possible unless the program is not loaded. It doesn't matter whether its a virus program or any other application. If it's loaded in RAM, it's overhead that is taking away from other programs. The very fact that every email, every document, etc has to be scanned inbound and outbound is overhead. Don't even get me started on the countless loss of productivity I've seen on hundreds to thousands of PC's while the users' virus program does a system sweep/scan or even something as simple as a definition update. Couple this will the anti-spyware and you have a large amount of overhead that you can't get rid of.

2. There are ZERO viruses in the wild for Linux. EVERY virus that is "listed" for Linux was developed as a proof of concept for one app or another, which the developers for that app then addressed. The whole idea that there aren't viruses for Linux like for Windows because of the size of the userbase is unfounded. Depending on which survey you use, UNIX/Linux runs between 50-70=% of the internet websites to the tune of 80-126 million systems. No viruses. Worms? Yes, but they were addressed and they have been very few in number, especially when you compare them to the number of Windows viruses. Trojan horses? Yup-but only a problem if you install software from an unknown or unreliable source. If you do-your fault. Linux/UNIX security model doesn't allow the spread of viruses, either. By DEFAULT, Linux doesn't allow execution of anything. In fact, you have to take steps to MAKE something executable. Contrast that to Windows where not only does the OS try to execute things as the default action, but often has administrator access to do so!

3. Performance is unmatched for high loads between the MS and Linux/UNIX worlds. Benchmarks consistently show UNIX for the last 30 years handling high loads with consistent stability and system response times. Only in recent years has MS made ANY headway into this and do you know how? By moving things into ring 0 (kernel mode). Anyone else see a MAJOR problem with this? This means your application will be running as part of the base kernel and can bring the WHOLE system down if there is a problem or exploit! This is a TERRIBLY insecure and unstable way to do things! Oh, and the improvements MS have made in security come as they make their OS's more like UNIX anyway...They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

4. Do you KNOW how many system calls it takes to simply open terminal on MS vs Linux?

Linux=719,000
XP (been supposedly stable for 7+ years)=5,000,000+

Tell me which is more efficient? The very fact that users even here are saying that you shouldn't run Vista or Win7 on XP supported hardware is PROOF that the OS has become even more bloated than the last version.

5. UNIX/Linux is more secure than MS products-take a look at the CERT database and see the ratio of MS to Linux exploits that are labeled as Critical. Most of the top 20 are MS. Does Linux have some, sure, but they are far fewer and fixed faster because the open source model works better and more efficiently than closed source. Nevermind the security holes that you are exposed to that they aren't telling you...

6. Linux/UNIX is modular by design. The philosophy of UNIX is: Do one thing and do it well. Rather than trying to incorporate your apps into the kernel, UNIX develops everything separately. The kernel is separate from the system commands, which are separate from your apps, etc. Because of this, you can trim down Linux to next to nothing easily. Long term, this means you can run on hardware for longer periods (generally until the hardware suffers a complete failure) without any forced upgrades thereby gaining the maximum return on your expenditure. Side by side, this also means, when coupled with the information above, that Linux running on the same hardware and MS will run faster. You will also have COMPLETE control over what is running and what isn't running. Yes, you can trim some things down in Windows but only to a point and that point will be far more bloated than where I can take Linux. I can even trim the kernel down to near nothing-try THAT with MS. This modular design and leaner size with optimized design also means I can do more with the system without having to add any additional hardware. Win-win-win.

7. Linux currently has better hardware support than Vista. I'm sure that may change over time, but it's interesting to note that point. With this, you have over 25,000 apps available in the default Ubuntu repositories for FREE and more available by download from various projects. I can make my laptop a router-connecting to nearly every protocol known to man, a server-outperforming even the latest MS server with Samba at their own game, or a desktop with no worries or threats from the before mentioned spyware or viruses.

All this said-if you want to run Windows, that's fine by me. For gaming, I understand but I would ask each of you gamers to contact your favorite vendor and ask them to release games for Linux. You'll find that the system benefits I mentioned above will be true in that environment as well.

glObalist
10-01-08, 06:07 PM
Nice wall of text there. I'm not slamming linux in any way, I'm just slamming the notion that an antivirus system will incur a noticeable and (as zoomy suggested) heavy CPU overhead to your Windows system. This is simply not true.

Remember we're talking about CPU overhead, not RAM overhead.

Now please step away from your machine for if you dare to click on the reply button you will see a huuuuge CPU spike of 100% CPU usage for 1 milisecond. I'm not sure your big admin ego and your fragile machine can handle this... Just kidding, but you may see the point.

Also, antivirus system sweeps suck and therefore you can turn them off.

wczimmerman
10-01-08, 06:12 PM
Nice wall of text there. I'm not slamming linux in any way, I'm just slamming the notion that an antivirus system will incur a noticeable and (as zoomy suggested) heavy CPU overhead to your Windows system. This is simply not true.

Remember we're talking about CPU overhead, not RAM overhead.

I know that-any program in RAM is useless unless the CPU runs it. Think of the countless CPU cycles wasted first for many years just running anti-virus programs, then later also anti-spyware (MS has their own now!). I don't have that problem.


Now please step away from your machine for if you dare to click on the reply button you will see a huuuuge CPU spike of 100% CPU usage for 1 milisecond. I'm not sure your big admin ego and your fragile machine can handle this... Just kidding, but you may see the point.

Not a big admin ego-just laying out my credentials before I started with my explanation. Yes, my CPU will see a moment busy when I click reply-running a program that I told it to run and nothing else.

zoomy942
10-01-08, 06:15 PM
Nice wall of text there. I'm not slamming linux in any way, I'm just slamming the notion that an antivirus system will incur a noticeable and (as zoomy suggested) heavy CPU overhead to your Windows system. This is simply not true.

Remember we're talking about CPU overhead, not RAM overhead.

Now please step away from your machine for if you dare to click on the reply button you will see a huuuuge CPU spike of 100% CPU usage for 1 milisecond. I'm not sure your big admin ego and your fragile machine can handle this... Just kidding, but you may see the point.

Also, antivirus system sweeps suck and therefore you can turn them off.


im not saying antivirus is stealing tons of CPU (on newer systems - on older ones? yes it does)... what i am saying is..

how efficient is it that, to even use my machine safely, i have to put in place safe guards? Seriously... If i am going into battle, do i want to wear a bright orange jumpsuit with a target on it? or camo so they dont even see me? which makes more sense?

glObalist
10-01-08, 06:19 PM
how efficient is it that, to even use my machine safely, i have to put in place safe guards?

Quite efficient, given that you only need to download and run one program, set it up and forget about it. It's nothing like setting up Linux, don't you worry. :p

zoomy942
10-01-08, 06:24 PM
Quite efficient, given that you only need to download and run one program, set it up and forget about it. It's nothing like setting up Linux, don't you worry. :p


on that one i will be honest - saying Linux is hard to setup shows you havent used it recently. is it different? yes, very much. but once you get past the Windows withdrawls you will no dounbt have (i did) you will see how much more sense it makes.

No more searching all over the web for something you need. Simply search in the package manager, check the box and click apply. THATS IT. it downloads it (and any dependencies it will need) and installs it for you. done. NOTHING in windows acts like that.

I can install an entire Linux OS in less time than it takes for you to simply run a Windows Update install.

it is seriously simple and easy. MY tablet and my wife's tablet were incredibly easy to configure and setup.

crainger
10-01-08, 06:58 PM
Not using an anti virus on any pc which access the internet and more importantly is used for checking emails and downloading files is crazy. Not just for you, but the people you send files and emails too, who maybe using Windows.

Think of others Zoomy, not just yourself.

Gimlis
10-01-08, 08:35 PM
on that one i will be honest - saying Linux is hard to setup shows you havent used it recently. is it different? yes, very much. but once you get past the Windows withdrawls you will no dounbt have (i did) you will see how much more sense it makes.

No more searching all over the web for something you need. Simply search in the package manager, check the box and click apply. THATS IT. it downloads it (and any dependencies it will need) and installs it for you. done. NOTHING in windows acts like that.

I can install an entire Linux OS in less time than it takes for you to simply run a Windows Update install.

it is seriously simple and easy. MY tablet and my wife's tablet were incredibly easy to configure and setup.

Wow sounds like youíre experiences with Linux are a Polar opposite to those Iíve had.

Iíve had the package manager fail and cease to work in 5 separate distributions Ubuntu , 2 x kUbuntu SUSE and Fedora, oops make that 6 forgot the Red had distro I tried years ago.

Fortunately those problems led me to community forums and man pages and force me to the use the command line and learn a little something in the process.. so far I am more interested in and impressed with command line than the GUIs Iíve seen for Linux.

crainger
10-01-08, 09:07 PM
My experience with Ubuntu has been less than great too. Stability problems with Open Office and Firefox/Thunderbird. The guy across from me has constant issues with his display driver and monitor. You'd think the last two were linked. Nope, our sys admin says they are completely unrelated issues. Other than that, it's a great OS to use. If I didn't need all the Windows stuff for games and Beagle's diabetes equipment then I'd use Ubuntu on most of my machines.

zoomy942
10-01-08, 09:15 PM
Not using an anti virus on any pc which access the internet and more importantly is used for checking emails and downloading files is crazy. Not just for you, but the people you send files and emails too, who maybe using Windows.

Think of others Zoomy, not just yourself.


lol zoomy = selfish.

as for antivirus, i dont need it with linux; therefore i dont use it. i can go to a completely virus infested page and nothing will happen. :)

zoomy942
10-01-08, 09:17 PM
Wow sounds like youíre experiences with Linux are a Polar opposite to those Iíve had.

Iíve had the package manager fail and cease to work in 5 separate distributions Ubuntu , 2 x kUbuntu SUSE and Fedora, oops make that 6 forgot the Red had distro I tried years ago.

Fortunately those problems led me to community forums and man pages and force me to the use the command line and learn a little something in the process.. so far I am more interested in and impressed with command line than the GUIs Iíve seen for Linux.


its fascinating that you have had so much trouble. I have used SUSE, Ubuntu, PCLINUX and Mandriva08 and none of them had troubles. the only problems were caused by me tinkering with settings becasue I was getting my touchscreen on my tablet to work.

Maybe give it another try with a fresh install of Ubuntu Intrepid?

Bearclaw
10-01-08, 09:30 PM
I've had my troubles also but I just take it slow. It's interesting learning it. :)

nekrosoft13
10-01-08, 10:00 PM
Come on Nekro any geek who loves software/hardware loves linux. It isn't as bad as you make it seem, and you just need to try the right distro. Truth be told you probably already use it every day in some embedded device and didn't even know it.

Also Zoomy it isn't about the price being free, but the code. ;)

you miss understood me, i do use linux, but on much smaller scale. and at current state that linux is in it will never replace main OS for me.

maybe if they improve it by huge margin maybe.

crainger
10-01-08, 11:31 PM
I think Linux itself is ok.

It's support from devs that isn't. I doubt that'll change any time soon either. Not in our life time...

grey_1
10-02-08, 04:14 PM
Wow sounds like youíre experiences with Linux are a Polar opposite to those Iíve had.

Iíve had the package manager fail and cease to work in 5 separate distributions Ubuntu , 2 x kUbuntu SUSE and Fedora, oops make that 6 forgot the Red had distro I tried years ago.

Fortunately those problems led me to community forums and man pages and force me to the use the command line and learn a little something in the process.. so far I am more interested in and impressed with command line than the GUIs Iíve seen for Linux.

That explains it. Package management is fantastic these days, at least on the debian based distros I've played with which include debian, the 'buntu family, kanotix (holy crap fast!) and one or 2 others. Mandriva based, only PClinuxOS so far - kudos to texstar and the gang, but my preference remains with deb packaging.

I remember the dependency hell from a few years ago. bad stuff :lol: