LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by Koolpc
NOW NOW!
NOW NOW!
so 8 years of screwing in hard drives clearly shows you know more that the whole Microsoft development team.
I look forward to some other equally intellgent posts , yet I fell I'm going to be disapointed.
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
So, you saying the Microsoft team are so good at thier job that they must be right? They always mess up the OP, everyone knows that. A lot of people have trouble with the updates. Read through some of the posts about updates on lots of forums and you get the same problems. As i said, i have never has an issue with security problems etc. I run a tight ship that does not need a million and one updates now and again!
Of course, i must be more intelligent than microsoft!! lol
Everyone should have a choice. I don't install them. That is my choice. If mr A wants to do the updates then so be it, up to him. I have never needed to and i have built many many pc's and i keep building them with no problems with security etc.
the masses dont nessesarily posses your capability to create a secured envirnonemnt and keep it secure. In my 17 years of PC usage I've only ever seen two go wrong due to an update , and one of those was because the user was unaware I was applying updates and power cycled midway through.
In times gone by , there where a few updates ( particularly some of the NT service packs ) that were less than fantastic. Things have come along way snice then. Skoda used to have a reputatino for making nasty cars , but that changed , so why not accept the fact that the quality of patches has improoved ?They always mess up the OP, everyone knows that
Take your average user connecting to the web with the shiney free USB modem that tiscali or what ever cut price ISP has given them.
The lifetime of an unpatched / unprotected machine connected to the web without any form of NAT is under 20 minutes. I know you should be at least behind a NAT router with the software firewall enabled, you most problably know it too. The vast majority of Pc users do not. This is why I consider it irresponsible to recommend that people lieve their OS unpatched. Its not a million miles from saying , "I dont bother to wear a seatbelt , I'm a good driver and I've not crashed in 8 years, so I dont need one"
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
Not irresponsible. It is freedom to do what you like. The thread starter has a choice. I am just saying what i do. If i told you to jump in front of a train would you do it? No. Exactly. All i am stating is that there is a choice. Lots of people don't download the updates.
They can be a pain and sometimes they do screw up a pc.
People do rely on Microsoft too much. They are forever releasing Operating Systems with major problems and then bring put patch after patch.
...and advising him to do the same:
You may have the technical expertise to so configure your machine(s) or network that the risk posed by not downloading updates for your operating system/applications is ameliorated, but it's irresponsible to assume that the same holds good for the person that you're advising. If you advise somebody to take a course of action that is inherently more unsafe than the alternative without their being aware of the nature of the risk involved then that is reckless.
To borrow your analogy, if either of us were told to stand on a railway line, we wouldn't; we know how dangerous railway lines are. However, someone, even someone very smart indeed, who had never seen a train and was unfamiliar with how it worked might well be persuaded to stand between the two big metal sticks, and they'd still be wondering "What's that roaring, rushing noi..." when they got splattered across the front of a Virgin Express. Not because they're stupid, but because someone who should have known better didn't take account of their lack of experience.
Can't back up the (most likely far more knowledgable than me) lads above
I've been working with PC's most of my shortish (not according to the missus though - cheeky) life and I have worked in IT Helpdesk environments. Mention NAT to ur average user and they ask if she's your sister. Most people don't even KNOW what a firewall is, or a bot, or a worm (part from the wiggly ones) and so they'll trust microsoft. Hell I whinge about them all the time. But NOT about what they've done with updates recently. And NOT about their firewall and future AV plans. I can't see how implementing an OS AV could possible hurt anyone: the advanced users ignore it in favour of others, but the average user leaves it on (big "Turning this off is UNSAFE" notices
Anyhoo - essay there but in the long run M$ may be a pita but I apply their updates cause they DO make for a more stable environment in the long run and they DO help people like my parents keep their PC relatively fee from screwing up.
/me off soapbox
I wish you two would shut up, i was interested in this thread until i hit your exchanges and now i've not even bothered to read nichomach's and kempez815's contributions that follow which may be rather interesting and thought provoking but you two have driven me away from this thread.
I'm sure Wannabgeek is intelligent enough to make his/her own judgement on who's advice to take, he/she doesn't need you to 'protect' them Moby, it's clear to anyone with a sprinkle of common sense that Koolpc's original comment is one to be disguarded with a note attached, idiot.
Insert disk, select upgrade, follow the on-screen instructions.
Laze.
You're invited to follow me on Twitter
Update all you want guys. Up to you at the end of the day. I never have and never will. If Microsoft were any good at thier job they wouldn't produce an OS that needs constant updating. Look at Linux for example. Not much if any updating needed there.
I think Microsoft do it deliberatly in that they develop an OS that they know will be bought and need updating every 2 mins. Keeps people coming back to them all the time.
Most people who buy a PC with XP on it enable the updates and that is probably the best way for them as they don't know enough to tweak thier pc's. I am not saying they shouldn't. Anyone who does not understand pc's should just go with the flow and do what is advised by thier pc supplier. But most people who have a lot of experience in IT go another route. We get around problems and tweak things our way.
No need to get bitchy on here guys, as per above thread. Just state your opinion and thats that.
If a customers asks me to enable auto updates i do so. If they are experienced enough with pc's and have done so for a long time we do work arounds. In that i mean that sometimes we do critical updates but we don't do all the updates.
At the end of the day, all i am saying is that 'I' don't enable updates myself. If anyone wants to, then that is up to them. Get advice and go from there.
Last edited by Koolpc; 24-01-2006 at 08:53 AM.
Every operating system on the planet is released with major problems, and then patched. Name one that isn't.
I'm not saying that MS are perfect, but if you are writing millions of lines of code based around a modern O/S, there is simply no way you are going to get a 100% bug free product. Expecting so is to show ignorance of the software development process.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
KoolPC, its people like you that I like, you make me seem so good at my job, when you install a machine do you not put the drivers on the system as theres loads of people that have driver issues
When I send machines out I make sure there as upto date as far as all updates go, install adaware, spybot, ms-antispy, cleanup, acrobat reader, latest drivers, BIOS updates and whatever else to bring the machine bang upto date as to whenever it leaves me.
ok thats enough. The question has been answered and its gone way off topic.
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
In answer to the ORIGINAL question...
For the home user there's little in Xp Pro that makes it different from XP Home and both are as safe as the other.
If that's your only reason for upgrading, I'd say to stick with what you've got and just make sure all your XP Updates are on, you've got decent AV and a Firewall.
The ONLY way to totally protect your PC from attack is to unplug it, box it back up and go and watch telly instead.
It does pay to be careful, but in all honesty, Pro and Home are as secure as each other... provided you keep them up to date with MS updates.
I only bought Pro when building a new PC cos it had the word 'Pro' in it... I'm running Media Centre Edition now... They're all as secure as each other, tbh.
Last edited by Nick; 24-01-2006 at 01:06 PM.
IIRC the only difference between pro and home editions is that pro will actually do something with >1GB of ram, it can be made part of a domain, supports advanced file permissions (auditing, inheritable user groups etc).
Unless you've a specific need that can only be addressed installing pro, you might as well stick with home.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
