anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley and
his girlfriend. Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when the media
reports anything. This figure might even be higher for cable channels.
Alanb
Alanb
> OE5/6 is pretty secure if it's using the Restricted Sites Zone settings and
> the user doesn't allow anything to execute in either it's preview pane or
> mail window.
--
Fester
A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago, nobody
ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now we're
starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i had people
tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over 21GB on
this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever be the
better choice in ***.
B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your thinking
that XP is less efficient for ***. They all pretty much show that it's as
fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are
usually driver related and not OS related.
The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =)
--
- Will DeRivera
- GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime...
- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> ...both versions of XP are wide open to hackers.
Achim
> Alanb
> > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of XP
> are
> > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email
or
> > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's shakey
> > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over your
> > sy.....
> > dave henrie
Achim
...
I agree with everything you said except hat WinXP is more stable than Win98
for ***. Just look at all the NGs what's going on there about WinXP.
I've always had a stable system with the older OSes. My current personal
choice is ME, and I haven't had a prob ever since I installed it. No
bluescreen, no nothing. Never. And I do a lot of installing/deinstalling and
experimenting with all sorts of applications and drivers.
Achim
> b.) Windows 98 is infinitely more secure than Windows XP. Then again,
> this is to be expected since Windows 98 has the benefit of 3 years of
> patches, where XP was apparently sent to a bunch of morons for beta
> testing (actually, based on the people I know who did beta testing,
> there's probably some truth to that statement).
> c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for
> *** if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order
> to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to
> kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with
> IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the
> Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing).
> The sole *** advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but
> bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most ***
> applications. I mention this because *** is the only reason why
> anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what
> with the number of operating systems available now that make more
> efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP
> continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that
> only run in XP.
> d.) The security exploit found in Windows XP dwarfs all security
> exploits found in any software in the history of computing. Because
> of a bug in the Universal Plug and Play feature (I'm guessing a buffer
> overflow, based on comments by Microsoft's Security Team) and the fact
> that UPnP is enabled by default in XP (can you say bad design
> decision) it is possible to gain access to any unpatched Windows XP
> machine that is connected to the internet (or any network that you
> have access to, for that matter). Period. This is a default install
> of what MS has hyped as the most robust, secure OS ever designed
> (wonder if they're familiar with FreeBSD, since they've stolen so much
> of the source code for their TCP/IP utilities from it).
> > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of
XP
> > are
> > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email
or
> > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's
shakey
> > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over
your
> > > sy.....
> > > dave henrie
benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are wrong.
Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll see
that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as compared to
9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps counter shows
the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in Win9x.
You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen. Run N4
in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still smooth.
Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the background
stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects (some of
the yellow traffic lights).
But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the Registry
(compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe drivers
chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed.
If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower.
Achim
> > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for
> > *** if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order
> > to look nice. This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to
> > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with
> > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the
> > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing).
> > The sole *** advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but
> > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most ***
> > applications. I mention this because *** is the only reason why
> > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what
> > with the number of operating systems available now that make more
> > efficient use of your system resources. I sincerely hope that XP
> > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that
> > only run in XP.
> A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago,
nobody
> ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now we're
> starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i had
people
> tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over 21GB
on
> this 40GB and that increases daily. =) Win98 will not forever be the
> better choice in ***.
> B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your
thinking
> that XP is less efficient for ***. They all pretty much show that it's
as
> fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are
> usually driver related and not OS related.
> The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with. =)
> --
> - Will DeRivera
> - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime...
> - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Achim
> > OE5/6 is pretty secure if it's using the Restricted Sites Zone settings
and
> > the user doesn't allow anything to execute in either it's preview pane
or
> > mail window.
> Granted. But it's default install settings leave a lot to be desired.
> And considering all the new folks buying their first computer & getting
> on the internet these days, using OE can be dangerous for them. All the
> latest worms/virii are plenty enough evidence of that. :-(
> --
> Fester
Alanb
> Achim
> > I've heard this before and frankly I could care less. Most of it is
> untrue
> > anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley
and
> > his girlfriend. Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when the
> media
> > reports anything. This figure might even be higher for cable channels.
> > Alanb
> > > Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of
XP
> > are
> > > wide open to hackers. The entire operating system, not just the email
> or
> > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's
shakey
> > > security history. Read more about it...before a hacker takes over
your
> > > sy.....
> > > dave henrie
Wow! I'm glad you told me this, because just this morning, when I awoke
after a series of troubling dreams, I noticed that things were not right in
my home. For one thing my computer was not in its normal place, in my
office. After noticing this and suspecting that I had been robbed, I rushed
upstairs to the living room. The Television was on very loud, tuned to the
Home Shopping Network. And there spralled out on the couch, as comfortable
as a dog after a bath, was my computer.
Using its mouse to hold the phone to the side of its head (monitor), with
its feet (part of what used to be my Nascar Pro Digital 2) covered up to its
ankles (acutally half way up the tower) in receipts, this computer of mine
was ordering every imaginable item from the HSN.
Over the sound of the percolating coffee pot, the humming of the
refrigerator, and the rumbling of the dishwasher, I heard muffled voices
from a nearby closet.
I opened the door as swift as a man ripping tape from a box just dropped off
by the UPS man, and there was my family, all taped up and scared.
"What's going on here?", I hurriedly asked. My smallest child quickly
answered, I suspect from not really knowing what was happening and thinking
it was a game, said-- "It's him!".
My wife and other daughter, whimpering and covered with hangers and old
clothes from the 70s, suddenly rushed toward "him." Before I knew it, they
were at "him", smashing it with their fists and kicking wildly.
The tide had suddenly changed. Within seconds the bulbs in the back of the
computer's head exploded with an unbelievable crash, the coffee pot stopped
its indecent percolation and the dishwasher ground to a ***-sounding
halt.
I knew then that my security issues were over and we as a family and as a
Nation were safe again.
Alanb
> Yes, that is - alas - true. You need to _make_ a system secure, as by
> default it usually isn't. All for the sake of user friendliness...
--
Fester
Jonny
What's wrong with Outlook? I've been using it for two years without
trouble.