Microsoft VISTA

[Thermodyne]

Sivran said:
Security.

Take a 9x machine.
Install TCP.
Connect to Net.

Take a XP SP1 machine.
Install TCP.
Connect to Net.

Which box gets rooted?
That's right--the XP box.

Why?
Exploitable services exposed to the net.

Now put the two in the soft and gooey interior of a LAN. They'll both get 0wned. Why? File sharing was installed, of course, and being on the "protected" interior of the LAN, they don't have any workstation-level protection installed and thus fall to the next worm that gets through the LAN's eggshell exterior.

But Sivran, Microsoft issued a patch!
Ah, but patches, after the arduous Microsoft testing cycle, must also face the corporate testing cycle, delaying implementation perhaps long enough for the network to get 0wned.

Games.

Take an old game. Let's say Descent, or Descent II. Install on 98. Game runs. Joystick may be a hassle depending on model, but game runs. Install on XP. Game does not run. Compatability mode isn't.

"Up"grading.

In all seriousness, why should someone downgrade from 98SE to XP? What benefits do they get, that they cannot also get from 2k if they seriously need it?

They will still face the same spyware threats. They will still face the same browser exploit threats. They will still face email-borne virus threats.

They will not face the worm-without-user-intervention threats--9x is not susceptible at all unless file and print sharing is exposed. XP is susceptible, even if file and print sharing isn't even there.

Software still runs on 9x. 9x can be quite stable--the trick, I find, is simply not using IE, and avoiding memory and resource-leaking programs like some ancient versions of ZoneAlarm.

Multimedia still plays on 9x. Just need the codecs.

Everything is still in a familiar place, same as it was in 95. No silly rearranged menus or control panels.

You don't have to rent 98 like you rent XP.

Erm. Where's the advantage of XP again?

Hey Sirvan, see post above, Buy a book, take a class, hire a pro. Because you don’t have a clue. First off, 9x can be exploited by anyone who can touch the machine. And any second year computer tech student that can touch it on the net. Second you should be securing XP before you expose it to the net. Third, you should have a hardware firewall between you and any high speed WAN. Fourth, LAN systems are secured with GP and are tightly locked down, unless the LAN manager needs to see post above also. Fifth, you get what you pay for. If you buy a single stand alone license, you can install XP on any single system you want, one at a time just like 98. The copy that comes preinstalled on the Compaq from CompUSA is a discounted OEM install, and not transferable. Read the fine print before you buy! Sixth, as to the 9X games you love, ever hear of dual booting?


PS: Here’s your sign.

[Fyron]

Thermodyne, please do not quote huge posts in the future. Ellipses work miracles.

[Atrocities]

Man that was a read!

[Renegade 13]

One thing that should never be talked about on a public forum:

OS's

[Sivran]

Rudeness does nothing to support your point.

Physical access leads to an exploited machine full stop. Operating system does not enter into it. Remotely, a patched 9x system might could be crashed, but you'll not be seeing it get rooted by the kiddies and worms running around. Anything more and again OS does not enter into it: the attacker was determined and, as any second year tech will tell you, a determined attacker is going to get in.

I do not advocate that businesses keep 98, much less choose 9x over 2000, however if they have existing 9x machines in low-risk areas performing tasks that won't be done any better on a newer OS, why should they bother with a newer OS? Don't fix what isn't broke, right?

As for end-users they probably have even more reason to stick with 9x if it is doing the job for them. Why should they bother with the hassle of switching? Again, they'll face the same dangers either way, assuming those dangers even apply, and 9x does the job. For what I do with my machines, 2000 does the job better and so that is what I use. 98SE however did the job quite respectably and crashed or required reboot almost as rarely as 2000 Server. The last 98 box in the house--tasked with playing movies to the TV in the living room on the weekends--suffers on rare occasions not because of the OS it's running, but because of the ancient video card. It doesn't crash, as most people seem to believe 98 is wont to do at the drop of a hat. It just sits there, providing internet access to that end of the house and providing entertainment (who needs media center? ). It couldn't possibly do its job any better if it were running XP or 2000. In fact, given the hardware in it, it'd most likely perform worse.

Insulting and talking down to those who still use 9x--hell my granddad still uses ME and has no problems--only shows your own arrogance and ignorance.

Use the right OS for the right job. 9x is just fine, even superior, in some situations. There are those situations where it doesn't matter, and in still others, yes it is inferior. That's a choice for the user to make. I'm sorry you can't seem to accept that.

As to dual-booting, why have two operating systems when one does most or everything a user needs equally well or with negligible difference?

[Thermodyne]

Again you post half truths and outright misinformation. Your first post is dead wrong. Physical access to an XP/2K system does not give you instant access to its information, where as 98 will allow anyone to logon and browse at will. And while the skilled hacker can root out any system, the majority of hackers are not that skilled. Less than .1% has that skill set and the low moral values required to put the skills to that use. And even the skilled ones are often stopped by modern domain security these days. Another correction would be that there is no such thing a properly secured 98 system. There hasn’t been a new security patch in what….two years now? And 9x is wide open to TSR’s. I won’t even bother to go into NTFS permissions or Group Policy; I seriously doubt you would take the time to digest the information.

To your second point I agree. But they should not be connected to LAN’s where sensitive data is stored. A 9x system can be bott'd with a script or TSR and used to compromise every system on said LAN. I am not a big fan of upgrading the OS’s on enterprise systems. The demands of newer OS usually require upgrading older system hardware to run properly, and the money would be better spent on new systems.

To your third point, no one is saying that 98 can’t fill a roll, and we are certainly not saying that your systems don’t serve you well, how would we know one way or the other. But, the average user will get a new OS when he replaces his equipment, 98 is obsolete and no longer licensed as preinstalled software on new systems. At no point have I spoken to the serviceability of your personal systems, I fail to see why you feel the need to defend them. But then perhaps you have good reasons that are unknown to us.

To your fourth point, I stand by my statement. Based on your first post, you don’t know what you are talking about, and it contains outright untruthful statements. And I fail to see why you brought your grand father into the discussion; it has no bearing what so ever in this exchange.

As to your point of using 98 in the right situations, that is true. But the situations are few. As a rig to run 9x series games on yes, because of economic constraints yes. But that is about it. And you’ll have to show me where I posted that I can’t accept people choosing to run 9x, I don’t recall saying that. To me it seems to be another untruth, this time veiled as if it was a statement I made. With the exception of 9x games or old down-level hardware, 9x is not superior.

And your last point makes little since. If you are keeping a 9x system just to run non NT compatible software, why keep a second system going? Unless of course there is another reason such as a user who relies on that system. I actually take it a step further by running more than on OS simultaneously. I don’t often advise this to others, as the hardware demands are more than the average system can provide.

My point is this, when looked at as a whole, XP is better than 2K or 9x. 2K can be adapted to standards that approach XP, but 9x can not. Longhorn will be better across the board than XP. But that does not mean that everyone should run out and buy it. I do object to people who have never used it crapping on it just because they think it’s cool to jump on the bandwagon and crap on anything new from MS. I will be glad to continue to debate the issue with you, but lets get more specific and leave grand parent and such out of it. Also, as of now, my opinion still stands, so here’s your sign.

[Fyron]

Thermodyne, you seem overly concerned with people hating Microsoft because it is trendy to hate it or because it is successful or whatever. This is blatantly opposite from reality for probably everybody that has posted in this thread. There are billions of valid reasons to hate Microsoft, none of which have anything to do with success or popularity.

Also, note that physical access to a machine guarantees compromise, period. It doesn't matter what is run on the machine, it will be compromised if the cracker means to compromise it. Noone said anything about "instant access." Guaranteed compromise has absolutely nothing to do with instantaneous access.

[Thermodyne]

People can hate anything they want, but they should be able to support their position.

As to access guaranteeing a compromise, I would have to argue that with you. But to keep this simple, why don’t you tell me how you would gain access to the data, then I tell you why it won’t work. And you get six tries, after that there is no data to get unless you are going to use some forensic recovery method. And for that you’ll have to remove the system which is beyond the scope of access.

[Sivran]

Again, resorting to insults does not support your argument. And you're doing it in every post: calling 9x users stupid and clueless. You've shown me--and anyone else who disagress with you--nothing but contempt and hostility. I can only conclude that it's just something you do to make you feel better about yourself, and hope that you don't carry over this hostility to your workplace.

An attacker getting his hands physically on a machine is the worst possible thing that could happen to any machine regardless of the OS. It WILL be compromised. Yes, time taken will vary, but it will not remain secure, full stop. This is why we have physical security measures as well as software.

To me it sounds like you believe in 100% security. You make it sound as if you believe XP in the enterprise is nigh invincible. I hope it isn't true, but your post sure sounds like it.

I am not a mindless MS basher. I think they have made some fundamental mistakes. Their patching is slow but I understand why it is and I don't fault them for it. Personally, I hate XP, it's only made life harder for me. I applaud Microsoft's recent efforts in the security arena. You on the other hand come across the same way as those rabid Firefox fans.

My point is, 98 and ME are still viable operating systems and should not be discounted simply because they do not contain the kitchen sink, nor should their users be subject to the flames you so enjoy spewing and the signs you dearly love. As to your opinion, well, we know what those are like.

[NullAshton]

ME is not a viable operating system, as it crashes every chance you get. It mananged to crash as it was connecting to the internet. How the heck does it manage that?