New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)
in [Laptops]
|
From: Barry Watzman on 18 Apr 2010 12:34 When the problem is a "security hole", the "brokenness" may not be obvious. BillW50 wrote: > > I personally believe in the old saying, don't fix something that ain't > broke. So while I am in the minority, I believe in time more and more > will also be convinced that OS updates are not necessary a good thing to > blindly always do. >
From: Bernard Peek on 18 Apr 2010 12:58 On 18/04/10 17:03, BillW50 wrote: >> UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend >> disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are >> compromised because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC >> under W7 you should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a >> little too aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that. > > Really? Windows 7 froze up whenever I placed my favorite BattStat v0.98 > utility in the startup with UAC enabled. I had to tell it always it was > okay to run every time I booted the machine. This is totally unnecessary. Well yess. You really shouldn't be using programs that trigger UAC. > > AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It would > be very nice if it allowed some programs a free pass and selectable by > the user. That wouldn't be very nice for the rest of us that have to cope with spam sent by compromised systems. There were others programs that UAC complained about too, but > BattStat was one that bugged me the most. > >>>>> And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your >>>>> Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the >>>>> Internet. >>>>> The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore. >> >> That's been true since automated patching was invented. > > I have some computers that I get almost every update. Although I also > have some computers that I never update. And I never had any virus on > any of them and I am connected to the Internet all of the time. So I am > having some serious concerns whether updates really makes a system more > secure or not. In the Windows world it's possible to check whether a computer has been properly patched and deny it access to the network if it fails the test. Unfortunately any ISP who tried to do that would go out of business. > > The biggest threat are newer viruses. And newer viruses like newer > applications require the latest patches to work well. So sometimes at > least, unpatched older OS can actually be safer IMHO. You've got that backwards. Viruses are often created by reverse-engineering the latest patches, but they then only affect unpatched systems. That's why there's a danger period starting about two days after a new patch is released. That's why running unpatched systems on the Internet is irresponsible and if I was emperor of the universe it wouldn't be permitted. > > And no, I disagree that this has been true since auto patching. As so > far, Windows XP and Vista doesn't have this WAT piracy checking system > which can downgrade your OS at any time of Microsoft choosing. Microsoft has made that patch optional but there is nothing stopping them from dropping that restriction at any time they choose. > Where > Microsoft is the judge and jury. And where you are guilty until you can > prove otherwise. And if you can't to Microsoft's liking, you must pay a > fee to get your OS back again. And you are not out of the clear either. > As Microsoft could downgrade your OS over and over again to collect more > fees any time they feel fit. This is absolutely true. And has been true since automatic patching was invented. > > Just look at the possibilities here. You could say something bad about > Microsoft and they could turn around and target your computer for a > downgrade. And charge you a ransom to get your OS up and running once > again. You know they will if they knew they could get away with it. And > knowing how Microsoft operates, I wouldn't hold it passed them. > They have had the capability to do that for years but have never used it. The same is true of the Mac and for those Linux users that can't rebuild the kernel from source. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: Bernard Peek on 18 Apr 2010 13:05 On 18/04/10 17:31, Barry Watzman wrote: > The problem is that there are a lot of programs (older programs) that > will generate UAC prompts every time you start them, and every time you > do certain things within them. Even if you are not even connected to the > internet. The best solution may be to configure UAC on a > program-by-program basis. This actually is possible, but it's not > something that MS intended to support, and, consequently, it's not easy > or user friendly. Programs that trigger UAC usually do it by attempting to write to the data folders. Programmers who write code that does that may have other unsavoury habits. It's best to avoid using programs from companies like that. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: AJL on 18 Apr 2010 13:49 BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. In Vista I use a free program called TweakUAC which says it allows UAC to run but in "quiet mode". Having never gotten a virus before or after installation I can't say how effective it is in quiet mode, but at least it never bugs me much anymore... ;)
From: BillW50 on 18 Apr 2010 14:17
In news:hqfc83$f1u$3(a)news.eternal-september.org, Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:33:06 -0400: > See my previous post. It is possible to configure UAC on a > program-by-program basis, but it's not user friendly. A web search > will find instructions for doing so. Be prepared to do a lot of > things manually. Okay. I filed it away in my brain cells in case I ever need it in the future and it is good to know that this can be done. Of course, I better make a backup of this on my hard drive just in case those brain cells start to misbehave. ;-) -- Bill Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2 |