OEM vs Retail XP Pro

JD wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

JD writes:


If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security
functions of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure
than Windows and all the popular web tools are there.



Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.


The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux

The fact of your simple fact is it isn't true. There are less than 100
viruses for Linux (even fewer that are 'popular') but they do exist and are
growing in number.

The 'no virus' argument has always been a 'damned if you do' kind of thing
with Linux because part of what's 'protected' it is the rather small market
share. I.E. if one wants to inflict damage on a multitude of systems then
you pick a platform that's popular enough to propagate it. And as Linux
becomes more popular it'll attract more attackers and lose that 'feature'
Linux aficionados are touting as a reason to make it more popular. The
curse of success.


and the
strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

One can run with root privileges in Linux just as easily as one can run as
Administrator in Windows.

and as
far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you
don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on
windows that you cannot do on Linux.

Not quite right either, depending on what it is you want to do. In a
business environment one of the big drawbacks to Linux has been the lack of
a full featured replacement for the MS Exchange server, which then
translates to what the client needs to be.

Bynari claims to have a replacement (using Outlook with it requires their
plug-in) but it isn't 'free' and neither is their client on the desktop.

you can even run windows programs
on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators

Partly true. The emulators are always 'behind' compared to Windows and not
all Windows apps will operate properly.

you can even play
Halflife2 and Doom3 on Linux.

and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.

JD writes:

The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the
strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
user identification than a simple user/root philosophy. Under Windows,
each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
centralized control of access to all individual PCs.

... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish
as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing
you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux.

The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
and only under Windows.

you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
Windows emulators ...

You can run them much more easily under Windows.

and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.

UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Aldwyn Edain writes:

And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
Almost the same thing.

Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of UNIX--even
though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as opposed to Linux, which
is a clone), but the user interface is vastly more coherent,
user-friendly, stable, performant, and secure, thanks to the huge amount
of money invested in it by Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget
by comparison.

Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats Windows
(slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications available, however
(although there are far more than you can find for Linux, including many
major name-brand applications, such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft
products).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"dawg" don't writes:

Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
etc.,you'll be SOL.

Since I typically never upgrade an OS after installing it, this is not a
very big issue.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Aldwyn Edain writes:

And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well
ok, BSD. Almost the same thing.

Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of
UNIX--even though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as
opposed to Linux, which is a clone), but the user interface is
vastly more coherent, user-friendly, stable, performant, and
secure, thanks to the huge amount of money invested in it by
Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget by comparison.

Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats
Windows (slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications
available, however (although there are far more than you can
find for Linux, including many major name-brand applications,
such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft products).

And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
threatened to stop making Office for the Mac. Apple is dependent
on Microsoft. People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end
up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that
out of plain ignorance.

John Doe writes:

And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
threatened to stop making Office for the Mac.

Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm
continually amazed by its survival.

Apple is dependent on Microsoft.

I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading
application for the Mac.

People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end
up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that
out of plain ignorance.

Plain ignorance, and unbridled emotion. Most Linux fans are in fact
Microsoft-haters who want something that looks, feels, and behaves like
Windows, but don't want Microsoft's name on it. They've latched on to
Linux and they are trying to make Linux into an ersatz Windows. This is
an exercise in futility, since nothing will ever do Windows as well as
Windows itself does Windows. Promoting Linux as a serious alternative
to Windows leads many unsuspecting people down a path to certain
disappointment and frustration, and it also guarantees that Linux will
never be anything more than an inferior and largely useless substitute
for Windows.

A few Linux users understand this and promote Linux as an environment in
itself, rather than as an alternative to Windows, but they are small
voices in a large and noisy crowd. Additionally, the massive emphasis
on the desktop that most distributions seem to put on Linux is really
trying to put a round peg into a square hole. UNIX and clones such as
Linux are not ideal desktop operating systems; they work better as
servers.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:


And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
threatened to stop making Office for the Mac.


Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm
continually amazed by its survival.


Apple is dependent on Microsoft.


I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading
application for the Mac.

What's kind of amusing is that MS developed Office *for* Apple and created
'Windows' to make it available on the PC.


snip

Mxsmanic wrote:

There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

I don't know when you last looked at Linux but most distro's now have a
Full GUI setup environment that automatically partitions your hard
drives, detects and sets up your hardware (admitedly some hardware still
lacks support). Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup
because they come pre-installed.

Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
user identification than a simple user/root philosophy.

I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all
distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go
as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the
superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain
users can do depending on what "group" they are in.

Under Windows,
each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
centralized control of access to all individual PCs.


This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX, Linux/UNIX was built with security
firmly in mind whereas windows security was an afterthought! EVERYTHING
in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive / cdrom, Every
file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can be set to any
combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more
permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on
CHROOT's and Jails.

Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the
new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up
with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings.

Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down,
Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know
that don't use the admin account? the simple fact that many users are
simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in
as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not
all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without
admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however)


... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish
as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing
you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux.


The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
and only under Windows.

Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound
editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very
little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST.


you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
Windows emulators ...


You can run them much more easily under Windows.

That's obvious they were designed for that.


and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.


UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.


I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my
main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd
players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for
there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers.

You are seriously underestimating Linux.

This post I fear has seriously went OT however I have enjoyed the
conversation however I will not be able to respond/read posts until
Sunday evening as I am going away for the weekend.

JD writes:

I don't know when you last looked at Linux ...

About two months ago.

... but most distro's now have a Full GUI setup environment that
automatically partitions your hard drives, detects and sets up
your hardware (admitedly some hardware still lacks support).

I tried Mandrake, and it hung after the pretty splash screen.

Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup because
they come pre-installed.

Yes. The same is true for Windows. But even an installation of Windows
from scratch is extremely easy and quick.

I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all
distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go
as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the
superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain
users can do depending on what "group" they are in.

Seems a bit odd to not even let root log in locally. It is the system
console, after all.

This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX ...

No, it isn't even possible in Linux/UNIX, with the exception of a
handful of very heavily modified versions of these operating systems.
Standard UNIX doesn't hold a candle to the granularity of security
available in NT-based versions of Windows.

... Linux/UNIX was built with security firmly in mind ...

No, Linux and UNIX have absolutely no clue concerning security. They
are barely a step away from no security at all; they have just about the
minimum necessary for a timesharing system, and that's it.

... whereas windows security was an afterthought!

No, Windows security is designed directly into the kernel, and is
enforced in the kernel as well.

EVERYTHING in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive
/ cdrom, Every file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can
be set to any combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more
permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on
CHROOT's and Jails.

Every object in Windows, file, device, resource, etc., has an access
control list that can specify any combination of _dozens_ of different
permissions for any combination of user accounts or account groups. It
blows UNIX security completely out of the water. There is really no
comparison.

Oddly enough, the ancestor of UNIX, Multics, did even better, but UNIX
dropped all the Multics security features for the sake of simplicity,
user-friendliness, and speed.

Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the
new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up
with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings.

All versions of Windows from NT forward have been built with security
from the ground up.

Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down,
Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know
that don't use the admin account?

It depends on the environment. I know of companies where nobody can log
onto his own desktop machine with an administrator account; everyone
uses simple user accounts, and only the IT department has administrator
access to machines.

... the simple fact that many users are
simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in
as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not
all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without
admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however)

The same is true for UNIX. Many UNIX desktop users run as root.

Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound
editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very
little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST.

There are a quarter-million Windows applications out there. Nothing for
Linux or even the Mac comes anywhere close to that.

That's obvious they were designed for that.

So why run them under Linux emulations of Windows, if you can just run
them under Windows for real?

I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my
main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd
players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for
there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers.

NT-based versions of Windows are rock solid also, they can run for years
without a boot. I almost never boot my Windows machines.

You are seriously underestimating Linux.

No, I've just been using these operating systems for many years, and I
know what they can and cannot do.

Always use the right tool for the right job.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

If you love playing with the OS and using your mind to come up with
creative ways to run almost everything - in one form or another - Linux
is great.

If you never want to be bothered with the OS and just want to get your
work done reliably and simply without too many application choices, get
a Mac and run OS X.

If you want to run just about anything and have lots of choices in
applications and do it relatively easily without having to bother with
compatibility, run Windows XP.

I have run all of them at one time or another on desktop computers.
Right now, I only have XP on my computers.

Clyde