The ultimate secret to faster and reliable Windows

The ultimate secret to faster and reliable Windows

Summary: The other day Ed Bott posted five secrets to faster Windows starts. It's a good listing, but Ed misses what I think is the ultimate tip for achieving a faster, more reliable Windows installation. What is this marvelous tip? Read on ...

SHARE:

The other day Ed Bott posted five secrets to faster Windows starts.  It's a good listing, but Ed misses what I think is the ultimate tip for achieving a faster, more reliable Windows installation. 

What is this marvelous tip?  Read on ...

The problem with the modern PC is that no matter how good it is when it's new, eventually it'll get kludged up with junk and reach a point where it's hard to separate out whether the OS has become flaky or whether the problem is with some other bit of code loaded onto the system.  All problems (whether they be stability or speed issues) become bundled under the category of "Windows problems" and  once you have a couple of problems on a system the system stops being a workhorse and starts being a project (the same thing happens to classic car owners who don't fix things - even minor stuff - as soon as it goes wrong).

So what is this ultimate secret to faster and reliable Windows?  Simple.  Reinstall the whole system from scratch (or a solid image) periodically and keep a close eye on the junk that you install in the interim.  It really is that simple.  That was my plan under XP and it'll be my plan under Vista.  I'm going to accept that over time, no matter how careful I am and no matter how restrained I am when it comes to installing beta and trial software, my system is going to kludge up with the detritus of normal day to day running.

It's for this reason that I take my time setting up a new system and making sure that I take an image of it once I'm happy (for this I use Acronis True Image).  Using this image as a springboard I can nuke the Windows partition and reload in a matter of minutes.  Then all that's left to do is reinstall updated drivers and any applications that I really need.  The whole process takes an hour or so (plus time to download and reinstall new Windows updates) and I'm left with a clean system.  My main workhorse systems have a lifespan of maybe a year before being replaced (or upgraded drastically) so I usually only need to do wipe and reload once.

Just to clarify ... I don't landfill my system yearly, they just move on to other duties.  Once I'm done with them, I pass them over to a good home.  Dead parts are recycled.  Given how many systems I've owned I'm pleased with overall how little waste there's been.

If you're a power user and stuck with a crapware loaded OEM reinstall disc for your PC then I'd recommend either trying to get a plain vanilla OEM disk from your vendor or buying an OEM version separately and using this to reinstall the system.  Personally I've not bought an OEM PC in years and even when I buy notebooks I either pick them up without OSes installed or reinstall the OS cleanly.  This costs me more, but in the long run I'm saving a lot of time and effort.

Thoughts?

Topics: Software, Hardware, Operating Systems, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

224 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The best secret of all?

    Don't use Vista!

    Until Microsoft fixes this bloatware, you are better of with XP, or another OS such as Linux.

    I have Linux on most of 3 of my systems at home one dual boots with XP, and a XP laptop, and 2 new HP laptops with Vista. Even with the new hardware, Vista is so bad that it blue screens the laptops. XP still runs well, and the Linux boxes scream.

    At my first opportunity, the new HP Vista laptops get Linux on them.

    So the best secret to a faster Vista, is to not use it in the first place.
    linux for me
    • Try to make it believeable

      I don't think I'll consider someone with the moniker "Linux for Me" as an unbiased or accurate when it comes to Vista. By the way, Vista does not Blue Screen.
      ShadeTree
      • Yes, Vista does BSOD

        http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/04/03/nvidia--vista--bsod
        http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2109559,00.asp

        Second link even has a little picture. Crappy drivers probably caused them, but yes it can BSOD.

        To be fair, Vista can't be any worse at bit-rot than previous versions of Windows, and I would actually hope it was a lot better.

        TripleII
        TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
        • Vsita

          i bought 5 vista pcs for work, 3 bsods out of box, reformatted with xp, no prob...
          kevin.fox
        • Vista can BSOD that is right

          I had it do that to me with an old driver for my DVD drive while I was trying to burn a disk and it decided to BSOD on me. Same exact screen that I got maybe 4 times when I had XP on my old machine.... and it was a crappy driver, which had multiple updates since I bought my laptop.
          Leria
      • That's right!

        It just reboots itself! ]:)

        Or in [url=http://www.villiard.com/images/vista-bsod.jpg]this case...[/url] you were saying?
        Linux User 147560
        • The BSOD is different then the screen shown

          ... in your demo. It contains a memory dump of hex characters. The one shown is an unresponsive thread message.
          ShadeTree
          • the screen is Blue! (nt)

            ;)
            n0neXn0ne
        • cr*ptacular!

          how do you know it's not a screen saver from sysinternals? :-)

          yes, vista does BSOD. if it does so before even allowing you to log in, and if it reboots every time, your only chances may be a previous image of the drive, recovery console, or reinstallation in repair mode.

          otherwise you can start only in safe mode, but then you can't download any updates (a system file was indicated as the source of the problem) or critical security patches from microsoft update, because vista will check if you are windows genuine advantage-d, and the test will fail because the software licensing mode service is not running in safe mode by design.

          since i needed to have some important work done in very limited time frame, that "quirk" was one too many in already huge pile. reinstalled xp and swore not to touch anything with "vista" on it even with a 10-foot pole, until at least 2014...
          the_fiddler_on_the_roof
        • Just cut to the chase.

          Vista is more secure and reliable than Ubuntu or OS X and that's the bottom line. Linux and OS X have their own versions of the BSOD and it's just playground taunting to try and isolate these problems to windows. <br>
          Looking at POC vulnerabilities over the last few years gives anyone a chance to see that Vista is the best of the crop. That's just reality. <br>
          FUD away if you must.
          xuniL_z
          • Re: Just cut to the chase

            Really? More secure than Ubuntu? Or Perhaps Red Hat? How? By the numbers put out by a Microsoft employee comparing the vulnerabilities of a OS + browsing system to the sum total of vulnerabilities of OS + browsing system + home entertainment system + Office System + what not + servers + packages not installed by default but supported anyway?
            You talk of POC vulnerabilities, show me POC vulnerabilities of critical holes pwning the system against RedHat with execshield and SElinux switched on (as is the default), running as a local user (which is also the default). Most of the exploits cause either raise of privileges of a local user, or run with local user privileges (browser holes), but very few vulnerabilities actually have exploits that pwn a system. Linux systems are usually holed by faulty administration, not by exploits against vulnerabilities.
            Vulnerabilities in OS you say? Compare for just the OS without browser and mail client and media player, against Linux, and you will see they are very similar. Ubuntu, which you have mentioned, with no applications and mail client (just the graphical environment, Xorg -server and libraries and kerneland a few basic tools, similar to Vista out of the box), has 3 critical remotely exploitable vulnerabilities affecting the home user (all 3 in Xorg,of course there are 3 more in OpenSSL, but they do not really affect the home user, but count them if you wish) compared to 6 (or is it 7?)in Vista for the same period. Do not just spread Microsoft FUD, and then accuse others of doing the same.
            My experience with Windows machines is that they can be kept very secure, but securing them fully is a pain in the neck compared to Linux distros. Why? Simple. The main attack vectors are third party applications. Ubuntu allows one to just patch/update their entire system along with applications with a single click, in Windows one has to first check for all the updates of all the third party software one has installed, then download them and install them separately. Not Microsoft's fault really, but for the end user,it does not matter. Whew, long post, rant completed!
            nilotpal_c
          • Dude, why do you compare corporate machines to home users?

            I am involved with a number of sites running windows server 2003 AD domains. The clients on these domains never lose speed or are compromised because GP keeps them safe and running what the user needs only. Any smartly run shop is as safe as the next. How many non IT folks are running redhat on their personal laptop or home PC? <br>
            This garbage about Windows is isolated to windows only because it's the OS of choice by mainstream public. There is no data, no history, nothing that would indicate, in the hands of a non IT pro, linux of any flavor would fare better in the massive worldwide average user role windows is currently serving. <br>
            not one bit. Just think when Joe average gets his hands on Linux and the admin password. How is the fact he must key it in, just like XP or Vista when running as standard user, going to stop him from downloading porn from an email link? It's not, just like it doesn't today. <br>
            All of this rhetoric about windows only serves to hurt people by and large. Why not educate them? Why mislead them? They are going to think, if they read these forums, that linux is inpenetrable so the malware problem when linux gets home user share is going to be worse. They will figure out how to run as admin and unlike Vista where admin even runs as standard user, they'll be screwed. In that sense, Vista IS safer. An admin role that runs as a standard user. Much better than a linux machine running as admin, that's just common sense.
            <br>
            All these years of bashing with nothing to back up the other side of the argument has been such a waste. For those involved, Merry Christmas and God bless you.
            xuniL_z
          • What are you speaking about?

            I am speaking about home users! I am comparing a home Linux desktop, just like I am now using. I agree with you that the user is the most vulnerable ( as well as the potentially most secure) part of the system, and you just have to read any Linux forum or any Linux website: the first thing that is advised is not to run as root or use the admin password unless absolutely necessary. They are educated at the very beginning about the dangers of downloading from unknown sites, and to use the repositories if any additional software is needed. They are also told at the very beginning that the user is central to the security of a computer! And this fact is emphasized again and again! In fact, I became a good Windows user after I used Linux! No software is impenetrable, all are insecure to some degree, if the users using Linux still think it is fully secure after downloading so many patches, I have to question their intelligence. And I have seen no Linux user claim so also. What irritates me is the blatant FUD that Microsoft is spreading about it being the most secure OS, using the most flawed statistics, and that is being parroted believingly by many readers.Why blame Linux users? It is Microsoft, who, instead of educating users, are touting Vista security as a product, rather than as a process. See my point, I was responding to your point about Vista being MORE secure than Ubuntu, YOU told that Vista was better, touting security as a product rather than a process, bringing POC vulnerability counts in the discussion. I told that vulnerability count wise, there was little to choose between the two, but the defaults in Linux were just stronger. I emphasized user process and convenience(the practice of updating all the software and installing all patches easily, rather than just the core OS and browser) as the main reason why Ubuntu was more secure. Read my post again! BTW, in Ubuntu and in Mandriva 2008, administrator runs as standard user too, just in a more secure environment.
            BTW, I am as non IT a person as one can get, if I can run Linux without issues, and learn how to secure Windows in the process, I suppose any one can!
            God bless you too.
            nilotpal_c
          • Suggested reading: Jeremy Allison's most recent blog

            You'll note how working on code in the pre internet days was so much simpler and how as Samba has grown, so has the time from flaw report to patch distribution. It's a natural process. <br>
            Microsoft grew into a giant during the pre internet days. Unprecedented in it's size and reach, people are not serving the truth very well by not analyzing how much more difficult it is in that situation. The downside of marketshare upside. Any company would have, or will suffer it if it happens to them. That's just common sense esp. with a codebase that started years before the internet was in place. <br>
            What I'm trying to say to you, is if Walmart starts selling Linux and the average users who don't know Linux from minix from windows start using the system, who have no idea nor will to go to sites to educate themselves (or they would have done so on windows already), you get a glimpse of what a mass market of Linux born overnigth would look like. A lot of confusion in this case, but the windows users that end up with trojans are the same one's who will have no clue about what you learned. Linux will not stop them from following bad links or downloading a trojan anymore than windows now does. Once compromised, a linux machine can cause as much trouble as windows machine. It's that huge center of Microsoft's market that make it appear insecure. <br>
            I've never had a security issue, that wasn't blocked or otherwise thwarted, on my XP laptop i'm typing this on. I've been running it for 7 years and nary an infection or loss of speed. <br>
            As for Vista, I do believe it IS greatly improved in security. IE running in protected mode either stops or mitigates most any attack via the browser. And the system is designed using SDL model which even the security experts are saying is much more secure. I'm not sure why you believe Vista is not all that secure. Any examples? It's had a few issues but all OSes do. <br><br>
            I'm not making excuses for Microsoft and their history, it's just a reality and I don't believe anyone else could have brought a massive marketshare into the internet age any better, with less issues. We'll never know now. Notice, however, as Mozilla gets market how it's issues trend upward in proportion to marketshare.
            xuniL_z
          • RE:Suggested reading: Jeremy Allison's most recent blog

            "That's just common sense esp. with a codebase that started years before the internet was in place. "

            And of course Linux has no code base that is huge I would have to presume. Let me tell you something. MS has dedicated (as in assigned) full time staff who handle their code base. Linux has programmers who collaborate and write code at their leisure. Sure, we have companies like RedHat and Ubuntu that have dedicated staff. But can you compare their No. of employees to MS. Yet nobody is claiming excuses for lack of staff in Linux. The analysis is about the OS and what it can do.

            "IE running in protected mode"
            What you are touting as something revolutionary is simply running a browser as a standard user and not as admin. wooohaaa protected mode in vista.

            "the system is designed using SDL model"
            umm hello, this is how software should be designed.

            "This garbage about Windows is isolated to windows only because it's the OS of choice by mainstream public."

            You know a little honesty would be good. Most users are not aware that a computer is not Windows. That is all they have been shown and know. So, they made the choice to use windows eeehhh. Even I when buying HW gear that I want have to pay the MS tax if I want to use it for Linux because I woun't be sold the system without MS. And don't tell me about other offerings like Dell. Have you seen the specs on those systems they sell pre-installed Linux. Yeah users have choice.
            goxk
          • ummm, hello.

            <i>And of course Linux has no code base that is huge I would have to presume. Let me tell you something. MS has dedicated (as in assigned) full time staff who handle their code base. Linux has programmers who collaborate and write code at their leisure. Sure, we have companies like RedHat and Ubuntu that have dedicated staff. But can you compare their No. of employees to MS. Yet nobody is claiming excuses for lack of staff in Linux. The analysis is about the OS and what it can do.</i><br><br>
            I hate to mock, as you do, but i'll give it a try. Why not, maybe I can become a zealot too. <br>
            oooooh. Microsoft has programmers. Really? Thanks for the heads up. <br>
            But in reality open source was going nowhere before the corporate world jumped in. FF was really floundering until Google made deals, loaned them engineering and they created a .com side of Mozilla. Yahoo got in on that action as well. So let me tell you something. Firefox programmers are "assigned" to work on Firefox and they get paid for it. That is a popular "open source" project, no? I'd guess you are a FF man. <br><br>
            <i>
            "IE running in protected mode"
            What you are touting as something revolutionary is simply running a browser as a standard user and not as admin. wooohaaa protected mode in vista. </i>
            <br><br>
            Apparently it's too woooohaaa for Mozilla. Haven't seen a Vista protected mode version yet. hmmm? IE on Vista is definately safer than FF on Linux. Unless of course you don't run any addins and turn off all scripting and make it utterly useless. thank you very much. <br><br>

            <i>"the system is designed using SDL model"
            umm hello, this is how software should be designed.</i><br><br>
            Really? hooowaaa. Well as Jeremy said he didn't have to worry about internet issues in the early 90s (They are the company that reverse engineered Microsoft's implementation of CIFS, which smb was invented by a guy from IBM to go on record as knowing, but it was MS's implementation they took as their original goal. hmmmm. ) and it got harder and longer to patch Samba. Well got news for him and you. Windows is even more the challenge and a lot of code and partnerships got started long before the internet. Windows was and is still about programming and usefulness. High end productivity OS. Can't be beat in that regard. You know, too much security and you are no longer free. It's just stifling. <br>
            Plus I love how the linux community seems to claim they invented the secure OS. BS man. Linux was a total copy of Unix and inherited the security. Sure Linus or Stallman can say that was their first goal, but Stallman was just emulating Unix, bit for bit and Torvalds Unix and Minix. That security model did not exist on original Unix and only through massive federal funding (America's working man's taxes) was a secure Unix created. It was done so because it was for Darpa. I say BS that Linux has anything to do with secure code. If that project had never occurred, which gave SUN everybit of their technology handed to them by the feds and anti trust amnesty to privitize the research..Apple got a good deal of it too.....Linux would not be secure either. It was dumb luck is what it boils down to in reality. <br> <br>

            <i>
            "This garbage about Windows is isolated to windows only because it's the OS of choice by mainstream public."

            You know a little honesty would be good. Most users are not aware that a computer is not Windows. That is all they have been shown and know. So, they made the choice to use windows eeehhh. Even I when buying HW gear that I want have to pay the MS tax if I want to use it for Linux because I woun't be sold the system without MS. And don't tell me about other offerings like Dell. Have you seen the specs on those systems they sell pre-installed Linux. Yeah users have choice. </i><br><br>
            Hello! It's 2007. Everyone knows what OS they are running now except for the lowest of educated among us. <br>
            This notion of "forcing" or Microsoft somehow bought off all of the governments of the world is the most wacked out conspiracy theory ever man. Get over it. Microsoft made a tremendously SMART move with IBM and the timing was sheer luck. From there they went on to build an OS so everyone could have a computer and they could sell everyone one. It is business you know. Like the people in the timber business, the cosmetics business, the aerospace business, the financial sector, the oil business..need I go on? <br>
            How can you turn incredible Good Fortune, into somekind of forcing of people and this mind control deal people have tried to push for ages. No, they got lucky and did a hell of a good job with that luck and became a huge company. <br>
            Apple could have tried to take them on before it was too late but they had no interest in the x86 market, that primitive thing....until 2004. How is that Microsoft's fault? There was always as much choice as the market gave. MS didn't control the financial markets. Linux was not mature enough to gain VC support...that's all there is to it. OEMs were not willing to take the chance either for many many years. That was a business decision. The linux community needed to sell someone on building their OEM...but there was no money interested in Linux not matter how you look at it. Apple was just being Apple and MS didn't do anything to stop them, in fact they were on friendly terms for many many years sharing technologies. Apple licensed a good deal of tech. from MS. <br>
            So again, how was that anyone being forced? <br>
            Right, it wasn't. <br><br>
            xuniL_z
          • A zealot indeed

            If you are challenged on your premises it must be because the other is a zealot. By that then I must be a zealot and so, let me continue my zealotry

            "But in reality open source was going nowhere before the corporate world jumped in. FF was really floundering until Google made deals, loaned them engineering and they created a .com side of Mozilla. Yahoo got in on that action as well."

            And why did the corporate world jump in to "save" OSS? AAAhhh because of the kindness of their hearts and their oozing of milk of human kindness of course. Let us ignore all else like, it is a viable business model and even more important why didn't OSS die long ago since it had no support?

            "So let me tell you something. Firefox programmers are "assigned" to work on Firefox and they get paid for it. That is a popular "open source" project, no? I'd guess you are a FF man."

            Naturally FF coders in mozilla are as many as IE coders in MS. But to me it doesn't matter. You were the one who raised the issue of code base blah blah blah and I pointed out that MS has more staff than probably all OSS put together. Yet no excuses for Linux lacking staff has ever been made.

            "Apparently it's too woooohaaa for Mozilla. Haven't seen a Vista protected mode version yet. hmmm? IE on Vista is definately safer than FF on Linux."

            It would be good if you actually knew what you are talking about. Protected mode in vista is nothing more than standard user. Why would Mozilla try to code FF around administrative privileges? It is already in protected mode just don't install it and run it as admin. Such a hard concept to grasp eeehhh. FF is a stand-alone application it is not tied to the underlying OS. If you get that then you will understand. And how you tell is IE on vista more secure than FF on Linux? Firstly, FF is a standalone application, IE is integrated to the OS. If you can't see security implications on that statement, i guess you will have been educated beyond your intelligence. And I need not pursue that any further.

            "hey are the company that reverse engineered Microsoft's implementation of CIFS"

            ah ha. Now the question is why did they have to resort to reverses engineering? Because MS refused with the specifications of SMB. So, on another note. You have been arguing about how code review is not as useful. Guess what Samba would not have been possible without code review due to reverse engineering.

            "Hello! It's 2007. Everyone knows what OS they are running now except for the lowest of educated among us. "

            You must Live in a different planet. Please let me know which retailer I can go to and purchase the machine I want without MS pre-installed. Whether it is Dell, Compaq, Toshiba, Lenovo etc Then come and tell me about choice. There are a few systems that you will be sold without MS but not all the systems. Of course if I point out the obvious it is a conspiracy theory.
            goxk
          • Nice job of picking and choosing to build your strawman argument

            <i>If you are challenged on your premises it must be because the other is a zealot. By that then I must be a zealot and so, let me continue my zealotry</i><br><br>
            If you must. Not preferable, but i realize it's probably out of your control. <br><br>

            <i>
            And why did the corporate world jump in to "save" OSS? AAAhhh because of the kindness of their hearts and their oozing of milk of human kindness of course. Let us ignore all else like, it is a viable business model and even more important why didn't OSS die long ago since it had no support? </i><br><br>
            Well i can tell you that IBM and SUN and Google jumped in, as much as anything else, to spite Microsoft. Sure they see it as an emerging technology that is good, never said it wasn't, but I've just not seen a lot of money going into building it up as a home user option yet. Probably cause it was not ready until the last year or so...if it is now. It's very close I will say. <br>
            But to say it's kept going leisurely by voluteers any longer is living in the past. It's not just Mozilla getting major funding and coders being paid to work on Linux. They have more resources than Microsoft all put together worldwide and many of them, most of them are getting paid now. IBM is still the giant of IT with revenues far above Microsoft. They are backing a ton of open source work, as is SUN, Google, Apple some and Microsoft even. Some governments of the world have declared their official operating system and it's gaining government financial support. In the EU it's getting a big push by forcing people to not use Windows whether they want to or not. Or at least Ms. Kroes insinuated as much and they've done so in other industries. I see that as forcing parity and mediocrity. <br><br>

            <i>
            Naturally FF coders in mozilla are as many as IE coders in MS. But to me it doesn't matter. You were the one who raised the issue of code base blah blah blah and I pointed out that MS has more staff than probably all OSS put together. Yet no excuses for Linux lacking staff has ever been made.</i><br><br>
            That is BS. Open source now dwarfs the number of coders working specifically on one project, head to head. There are far more Linux contributors and employees than Microsoft has working on Windows. The thousands doing it as voluteer work are just the cusp of it. As for making excuses??? everytime FF has had problems in the past, which has been many times, the linux zealots immediately and w/o fail blame them on insecure add ins and 3rd party software. Hey, the same can be said for the vast majority of windows woes but you don't see windows zealots by the hundreds decend upon a blog to protect the Queen by pushing the blame. I've been around, i've read these blogs, I know how it works. Now everyone just claims to run noscript or something like it. That doesn't solve very much, just takes away all of the functionality. <br>
            The chain of posts go like this: "Linux has no bugs" a bug is disclosed. "it was a 3rd party product that caused it" or "yeah, but it was fixed fast". Then a version gets ultimately hammered like Ubuntu breezy and it's "they didn't have it patched". That never seems to be a good excuse for windows users, now does it? <br><br>



            <i>
            It would be good if you actually knew what you are talking about. Protected mode in vista is nothing more than standard user. Why would Mozilla try to code FF around administrative privileges? It is already in protected mode just don't install it and run it as admin. Such a hard concept to grasp eeehhh. FF is a stand-alone application it is not tied to the underlying OS. If you get that then you will understand. And how you tell is IE on vista more secure than FF on Linux? Firstly, FF is a standalone application, IE is integrated to the OS. If you can't see security implications on that statement, i guess you will have been educated beyond your intelligence. And I need not pursue that any further.<i>
            <br><br>
            Vista's UAL virtualization does not apply to protected mode. As I said, FF (the last I knew) did not have full protected mode support. <br>
            http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=336 <br>
            Speaking of beyond one's intelligence, i guess we'll have to take your comment above with the grain of salt it deserves and as far as your intelligence.....I won't bother going there. <br> <br>

            <i>
            ah ha. Now the question is why did they have to resort to reverses engineering? Because MS refused with the specifications of SMB. So, on another note. You have been arguing about how code review is not as useful. Guess what Samba would not have been possible without code review due to reverse engineering.</i><br><br>
            We've been over this. Microsoft is proprietary code. They had altered and created a vastly improved and modified CIFS. Samba apparently wanted to use the best available as their model. Hey, I can't blame them. The fact they basically stole it by reverse engineering it was not exactly courteous..but hey. If they must. <br><br>


            <i>
            You must Live in a different planet. Please let me know which retailer I can go to and purchase the machine I want without MS pre-installed. Whether it is Dell, Compaq, Toshiba, Lenovo etc Then come and tell me about choice. There are a few systems that you will be sold without MS but not all the systems. Of course if I point out the obvious it is a conspiracy theory. </i><br><br>
            As I told you, if Linux were demanded in that market, the OEMs and other Venture capitalsts would be falling all over each other to create their own Linux OEM distribution channels. Microsoft doesn't dictate that, the market dows. There can be more companies than HP and Dell. Nobody is stopping Europe or vast amounts of other American wealth from putting a ton of cash behind Linux. Someone has to sell that, but it has nothing to do with Microsoft. You seem to be envious of their success here and nothing more.
            xuniL_z
          • Pick whatever topic you want and I will debate you

            The accusation that I am picking my strawmen is just plain silly.

            "Well i can tell you that IBM and SUN and Google jumped in, as much as anything else, to spite Microsoft."

            Very intelligent observation. And when did they figure this out? After OSS became a viable business model? Why did they not sit down and come up with something without having to rely on disjointed developers.

            "Probably cause it was not ready until the last year or so"

            And what will determine this? why not last year so that they could spite MS even more? Puhleez


            "That is BS. Open source now dwarfs the number of coders working specifically on one project, head to head."

            Is that so? Is this calculated on the basis that since RedHat, Novell etc would have assigned individuals dealing with say Samba integration on their Linux offering are much more than MS SMB crowd? Shouldn't we be looking at the team at Samba development and the team at SMB development? And you can claim that Linux has more developers per project than any MS project? I love your zealotry. MS has over 79,000 employees

            "Vista's UAL virtualization does not apply to protected mode. As I said, FF (the last I knew) did not have full protected mode support.
            http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=336
            Speaking of beyond one's intelligence, i guess we'll have to take your comment above with the grain of salt it deserves and as far as your intelligence.....I won't bother going there. "

            Please read your own links. here it is
            "[ZDNet] Is Protected Mode a priority for Firefox? After the animated cursor attack, Protected Mode became important in user?s minds. Microsoft claimed that IE was more secure than Firefox because of Protected Mode.

            The animated cursor attack would still allow for reading of any files on the local system - so protected mode is no panacea. We believe pro-active and rapid patching of security vulnerabilities is still the best defense. Having said that we also believe in defense in depth and are investigating protected mode along with many other techniques to improve security for future releases."

            And while at it, I will educate you on protected mode. Protected Mode helps protect users from attack by running the Internet Explorer process with greatly restricted privileges. Now, how is that different from running as a standard user since as standard user has restricted privileges?

            Again I re-enforce "FF is a standalone application, IE is integrated to the OS. If you can't see security implications on that statement, i guess you will have been educated beyond your intelligence. And I need not pursue that any further."
            goxk
          • Any topic eh? You are so modest. wow. Well let's stay on topic here.....

            and again you made arguments that only look at part of the picture or make no sense to me. Such as UAL/protected mode and FF. I'll address it when we get there.
            <br><br>
            <i>"Well i can tell you that IBM and SUN and Google jumped in, as much as anything else, to spite Microsoft."

            Very intelligent observation. And when did they figure this out? After OSS became a viable business model? Why did they not sit down and come up with something without having to rely on disjointed developers.</i><br><br>
            Sorry but i'm not against Linux as an OS. Never have been, never said I was, but only that it's better than current Windows technology and the smug attitude of linux zealots whose original mantra was anti-corporate and now those "old timers" have been pushed aside and Torvalds hopes of sharing the market with proprietary software trampled over and the zealots want total control and part of their plan involved years or disparaging remarks against windows and it's users. They cried about security when Linux had nothing any better, just no users. Vista comes along and over a year has proved it is much more secure than prior versions and trying to make security a bigger priority but the zealots slam it for being too secure in some instances or pounce on the 3rd party vendor issues they've faced to try and smear the OS. That's what I don't like. But if you can find where i've said Linux is total garbage and should not exist, feel free and post a link. <br>
            As for Google they are evil. "do no evil" RIGHT. They've used Linux inhouse and built their own versions w/o any return of it back to the community. I know the licensing allows that but that's a shame. And only their desktop code has ever been released and that's incomplete. It's like their search engine whre they claim that is inhouse code apparently since i've not seen that code, is it available? It should be, it's a service used by millions outside their physical or even virtual walls. It has advertising and is the home page to their for lease apps. It's a commercial service that should under GPL licensing be exposed. I'm not sure what licensing they use for the search engine portioin of their codebase however. <br>
            IBM and SUn have been working with Linux for a number of years now. My contention, AS I SAID, was simply about home desktop penetration and that MS does not stop that, the lack of market interest in it so far does in that sector. <br>
            NOBODY is relying on disjointed developers. IBM and SUN and Google's Linux projects are managed as well as any of Microsoft's. Microsoft's devs are not all on site in Redmond. What does physical boundries have to do with anything? OSS code management is as good as Microsoft has, there is no advantage to Microsoft here. <br><br>


            <i>"Probably cause it was not ready until the last year or so"

            And what will determine this? why not last year so that they could spite MS even more? Puhleez</i><br><br>
            AGAIN, I am talking about commercial desktop distribution and you are talking about Linux at large. Think that could be the issue? I said it in my first reply to you. <br>
            One more time. Even die hard Linux folks realize the package has not been ready for average windows users until the last few years. Before that the install process on any distro was still too hard, or driver support was not up to speed and other isses that are getting cleaned up. Has nothing to do wtih Google and IBM and SUN and Governments around the world starting to pump billions into open source projects other than the desktop??? Sorry but I really think you misunderstood. <br><br>

            <i>
            "That is BS. Open source now dwarfs the number of coders working specifically on one project, head to head."

            Is that so? Is this calculated on the basis that since RedHat, Novell etc would have assigned individuals dealing with say Samba integration on their Linux offering are much more than MS SMB crowd? Shouldn't we be looking at the team at Samba development and the team at SMB development? And you can claim that Linux has more developers per project than any MS project? I love your zealotry. MS has over 79,000 employees</i><br><br>
            Samba is just one entity of thousands sharing code. <br>
            How many of the 79K do you think are developers working heads down on code everyday?? Cut that number at least in half. Everyone knows that Microsoft, because they are so huge, is middle mgmt. heavy and struggling with how to be agile. They do not have the advantage of working ON something. What I mean is you take American made cars. They did build a huge ecosystem and it's hard to tear an ecosystem like that apart and see all of those jobs lost and people displaced. It's like a large political undertaking. Meanwhile, the Japanese companies, as they do with all products, take existing technology from the U.S. and elsewhere and just concentrate on improving upon it. They don't have to do the pioneer work or learn how to market on their own. They get all of that handed to them then take it step further to build a better automobile. <br>
            Same with Linux to some degree. They've been working on emulating Windows basically for the vast majority of the project. There is a good bit of code available and what's not can be reverse engineered, then with fresh teams who are not tied down under the weight of of Microsoft's current internal structure, which wsa evolutionary over many many years, they build the same or try to build a little bit better. I don't see that as an amazing feat and any kind of thing that says Linux is "better" than windows. <br> And yes there are more OSS coders than the 20K or so at Microsoft when you total worldwide input via individuals and huge corporations. <br>
            It's only this disparaging of MS at every turn, and their users i hate. I know too many really great God fearing, hard working people using Windows to great advantage to listen to that kind of crap. Security is not the lone metric by which an OS is measured. Windows is a very developer friendly, integration ready, economy of scale platform. And now security is good and should be applauded they are trying hard but instead they are getting based as hard as ever. <br><br>

            <i>"Vista's UAL virtualization does not apply to protected mode. As I said, FF (the last I knew) did not have full protected mode support.
            http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=336
            Speaking of beyond one's intelligence, i guess we'll have to take your comment above with the grain of salt it deserves and as far as your intelligence.....I won't bother going there. "

            Please read your own links. here it is
            "[ZDNet] Is Protected Mode a priority for Firefox? After the animated cursor attack, Protected Mode became important in user?s minds. Microsoft claimed that IE was more secure than Firefox because of Protected Mode.

            The animated cursor attack would still allow for reading of any files on the local system - so protected mode is no panacea. We believe pro-active and rapid patching of security vulnerabilities is still the best defense. Having said that we also believe in defense in depth and are investigating protected mode along with many other techniques to improve security for future releases."

            And while at it, I will educate you on protected mode. Protected Mode helps protect users from attack by running the Internet Explorer process with greatly restricted privileges. Now, how is that different from running as a standard user since as standard user has restricted privileges?

            Again I re-enforce "FF is a standalone application, IE is integrated to the OS. If you can't see security implications on that statement, i guess you will have been educated beyond your intelligence. And I need not pursue that any further."
            <i><br><br>
            Again you are making the wrong argument. For one, IE on Vista has been somewhat decoupled from the OS and protected mode does mitigate or prevent many attacks that would still hurt even linux and certainly OS X. <br>
            When you say "FF already runs as a standard user and that equals protected mode" you are making incorrect statements IMHO.
            <br>
            First of all, how can the app dictate what "user" it's running as another OS? If I run it on XP as and admin it will have admin priviliges. Are you saying it contains it's own built in standard user for any platform and creates that user on the fly to run in a virtual sense perhaps? I don't get it. <br>
            Again, UAL virutalization DOES NOT INCLUDE protected mode. <br>
            And thanks, but I know the purpose of protected mode w/o your explaination. <br>
            The POINT however is that when FF is running on Vista, it's running under the user on windows that is running it, and that might NOT be a STANDARD user unless, again, you are saying FF creates it's own std. user virtually on any OS it runs on? I don't believe hat is true. <br>
            So, since UAL virtualization does NOT AFFECT protected mode, running FF on Vista is not as safe as running IE which fully supports protected mode. <br>
            FF doesn't get STANDARD USER privileges on Vista UNLESS it's able to run in PROTECTED MODE. While they are working on it, it's not as safe as IE.<br>
            xuniL_z