How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure

[objective]

But yo can't despute the fact tha Microsoft put Internet Explorer there push Netscape out in the first place.

that's not the topic

[muzzy]

I don't have enough background knowledge about the IE-Netscape fight, but I have to admit it's quite disturbing that IE development was stopped when it had gained dominance. I'm more interested into the technical side of my OS of choice than politics, sorry

[Kintaro]

I don't have enough background knowledge about the IE-Netscape fight, but I have to admit it's quite disturbing that IE development was stopped when it had gained dominance. I'm more interested into the technical side of my OS of choice than politics, sorry

 (most of what people do here is bitch about politics)

[muzzy]

It sucks that so many people hate technically superior system due to marketing practices and other issues. I suspected earlier that people oppose Microsoft for ideological reasons and now I'm sure this is most likely true even in the cases where people claim otherwise.

Call it arrogance if you want to, but if you don't understand something, your opinions about it are going to be useless. I haven't researched the marketing and don't understand business too well, so my views on microsoft's business practices are going to be useless. Similarly, if you don't understand how Windows NT works, your views of it are going to be useless. One thing which you can claim competence is understanding user experience for clueless users, which apparently indeed sucks. However blaming it for technical issues you have little knowledge of is not going to be fruitful.

My views might seem unrealistic because I mostly refuse to helpdesk newbies (it's such a hassle), and I know what I'm doing so my views are based on what Windows NT systems are like when they're used by someone who at least knows the minimum necessary basics of computers, operating systems and windows. My point of view is also a programmer-centric, which could explain why the system makes so much more sense to me than it does to you. Based on my experiences, Windows is a wonderful OS which is quite stable and secure. It's not perfect, but it's great, and for me it's better than any other alternative out there.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I don't see anything wrong with not buying something for political reasons. It's like not buying a pair of trainers even though they're both better and cheaper because they're make by child slaves. However Microsoft Windows is not the best operating system and it certainly isn't the cheapest.

[muzzy]

Ideological/political reasons are fine, there's nothing wrong with it if that's indeed the reason. But a lot of people have such reasons, yet claim otherwise. This is silly and annoying, because there's no point discussing with them about the issues they claim are the reason, because they're not the reason.

What is "best" always relates to some specific use and specific requirements. Windows isn't "the best operating system" for this reason alone, such a concept as "universally best" just doesn't exist. Things can be good for some purposes or bad for some purposes, but are generally not universally good or bad.

Oh, and it's quite naive to think that the sales price is the only thing that affects cost of running a system. Ofcourse, it's easy to find a scenario where a free (as in beer) operating systems are truly cheaper than windows, but it's equally easy to find a scenario where windows ends up cheaper to run. It's a case to case thing, and its significance varies from case to case as well.

[Orethrius]

TCO is bullshit jargon used to justify the existence of a system that costs US $350 retail, ~ US $180 OEM.  Maybe if it only measured cost of maintenance, there'd be a fair competition, but corporations always feel the need to include the ever-more-vague - and highly subjective - term "training" in the shootouts.  Figures.

[Kintaro]

Muzzy you have a point about understanding the system.

Personally I do not see it as technologically superior. Linux has as much as NT does, it has accses control lists and everything you have talked of so far, and just like Windows most distro's dont use them. However Fedora has SELinux as an option for example, which I have mentioned, and being The Linux Hitler I repeat myself often.

You might want to start it in another thread, because I am curious what Windows has that Linux does not.

[muzzy]

TCO is bullshit jargon used to justify the existence of a system that costs US $350 retail, ~ US $180 OEM.  Maybe if it only measured cost of maintenance, there'd be a fair competition, but corporations always feel the need to include the ever-more-vague - and highly subjective - term "training" in the shootouts.  Figures.

Well, TCO just basically means how much the company has to invest to use some system. To be able to operate a system, you need to be able to use it. If some people don't know how to use windows and the required applications, you need training. Same applies for linux and the required applications. Comparing mere numbers is pointless, though. Whatever method is used to calculate costs, it will vary on case by case basis.

With TCO, as with all statistics, you have to understand what is being measured and if it applies to what you're using it for before you use it. If your case doesn't match with the assumptions used for the calculations, the numbers are worthless. However, just because generic studies don't work in some specific cases doesn't mean things aren't that way. Windows based solutions can be cheap, and often are, for specific cases.

[Calum]

oddly enough, the discussion has veered away from the issue of IE's integratedness, almost immediately after me getting a bitchslap for going "off topic". And now we've got another moaning sourface chiming in purely to whine about what's on and off topic too!

considering the thread is called "How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure", i wonder why certain people keep trying to intimidate certain other people (some of whom are no doubt not posting here as a result) by moaning about them being off topic.

this thread title includes a WIDE range of potential discussions and I think that people (esp people who are not moderators) should probably moan LESS about what's on and off topic.

and this post is not off topic, consider it an administrative comment, i suppose.

[muzzy]

Calum, if there's still something unclear IE's integratedness, go ahead. I've stated my views already, which are to say that the "integratedness" is not a security issue, and IE isn't necessary for system operation although Windows itself doesn't want you to uninstall it. You're free to download a third party tool such as nlite to remove anything you want to.

[jtpenrod]

It sucks that so many people hate technically superior system due to marketing practices and other issues. I suspected earlier that people oppose Microsoft for ideological reasons and now I'm sure this is most likely true even in the cases where people claim otherwise.

What is "best" always relates to some specific use and specific requirements. Windows isn't "the best operating system" for this reason alone, such a concept as "universally best" just doesn't exist.

From one post to another, you contradict yourself. What constitutes "technically superior"? You have already admitted that the whole Win 9x series is not "technically superior", nor do you seem to think all that highly of Win XP either. The comment in red is the correct one. There are no "ideal" solutions out there, never were, never will be.

In many ways, Linux is the "technically superior" platform. If I were setting up a server farm, Win-d'ohs would be my absolute last choice. When it comes to setting up a system for a routine, run-of-the-mill user who's largely atechnological, and not interested in learning, then, perhaps, XP would be the best choice. As for myself, it is not an option. I'm too enamoured of the configurability of the *NIX's. My desktop of choice is Enlightenment. Now, should I decide to get KDE, GNOME, IceWM, etc. it's NBD to install one or more, plus a desktop switcher, and I can still keep Enlightenment. Change the desktop in XP, and it's quite a job of hacking, nor do you have the option of easily switching desktops and themes. XP just is not as configurable.

Furthermore, Linux is a better platform for learning programming. The RAD development kits that come with Win * are certainly convenient and you can move apps out the door quickly with them. However, these dumbed-down development environments lead to lazy, dumbed-down developers. A pretty GUI can easily hide a multitude of bad code. We've all seen the result: apps that crash at the drop of an electron, the wide-open buffers, apps that don't perform as advertised. "Professional" programmers who don't seem to be able to understand what a pointer is and what it does.

I suspected earlier that people oppose Microsoft for ideological reasons and now I'm sure this is most likely true even in the cases where people claim otherwise.

You are never going to separate "ideological" concerns. It was Microsoft themselves who made it an issue. WPA, the onerous EULAs, the attempt to 'jack Java, the on-going attempt to 'jack the very protocols that drive the 'Net: all these are political and ideological. Microsoft could put an end to it any time they wanted to: use W3C compliant HTML in IE so that there would be no more web sites (and I've seen a few) that won't render on alternative browsers, cancel the NDAs that they require manufacturers of hardware to sign for full access to the Windows API, so that the protocols of said hardware could be published and Open Source drivers could be written for such things as WinModems, WinPrinters (Note: I personally visited the corporate headquarters of Lexmark to ask about the protocols for the Lexmark WinPrinter. They refused, even though I told them that I would code a Linux driver and give the code to them, citing an NDA.) audio and video cards so that full functionality could be guaranteed when used with non-Win * platforms.

Don't like it? Then take it up with Sir William of Redmond; you're barking up the wrong tree here.  :p

[muzzy]

Indeed, I'm still talking about Windows NT, not the 9x. The reason I dislike XP is unrelated to the core kernel, but the cheese that some jerks have managed to push on top of it.

What comes to window managers, some applications would just totally die if you were to change the default windowproc or the default widgets. I happen to like the windows look, and the desktop itself is configurable enough. You can change your shell without screwing the whole system, and you can have per-user shells. That's well enough for me. The shell can then perform any skinning hacks it wants to. Just because there isn't some cute "Shell Changing Wizard" doesn't mean it's less configurable. I suppose you're ok with editing configfiles by hand in linux? Well, you can edit the registry by hand in windows.

Regarding the programming, stupid developers exist using all platforms. The development platforms aren't really always "dumbed down", a lot of things are just abstracted. The problem is that the abstractions tend to always leak in a way or another, so the developer would better know how the stuff works underneath the abstraction. The higher level language you take, the less programmers have to care about lowlevel issues, and the less they will care about them. The solution is not to teach developers about lowlevel issues, but to move to even higher level languages. Buffer overflows only happen in languages where it's possible to do in the first place. Applications not working as advertised tends to be due to lack of testing, i.e. the whole development process is to blame, not merely the programmer. This isn't fault of windows, this is fault of inexperienced developer. Are you saying it's a bad thing to enable these people to write software? By the same logic Photoshop sucks too, because it enables 10 year old kids to smack lens flares on top of otherwise fine pictures. The fact that incompetent people can still do something that does its job is only a proof that the development tools are damned powerful.

Regarding the issue with drivers, this is a lot bigger thing. NDA is just an excuse in some cases, the real thing is that keeping the drivers closed gives a competitive advantage. With complex devices, you can usually determine a lot of stuff about the hardware based on the driver and the hardware interface alone. Opening that information would be same as revealing trade secrets to your competitors. It's just a bad idea, so people won't be doing it unless everyone is forced to do it. The issue is especially touchy with the winmodems and winprinters, because a lot of the functionality gets implemented in software. If this software was free (as in speech), it would enable competitors to merely copy the hardware and use the same software for their own hardware. This would save a significant amounts of money, and companies are responsible for making profit. They can't just give away stuff that will save a lot of money for their competitors and cuts their own share.

[Calum]

Calum, if there's still something unclear IE's integratedness, go ahead. I've stated my views already, which are to say that the "integratedness" is not a security issue, and IE isn't necessary for system operation although Windows itself doesn't want you to uninstall it. You're free to download a third party tool such as nlite to remove anything you want to.

no, no, i was just commenting (in an admin type way) that the thread topic is quite wide, so i am a bit bemused by the flying accusations of off-topicness going on, that's all.

[Kintaro]

Personally its quite damn easy to secure up IE a little, however I find the interface so damn annoying, I dig Tabs, yaar.