|
||||||
|
Views:
11,053,316 |
   
Main
| FAQ
| IRC chat
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Latest posts
| Stats
| Ranks
| Online users
| Search
|
11-25-24 12:03 AM |
||||
| Guest: Register | Login | ||||||
| 0 users currently in msg db 'Computer Address',0xa | 1 bot |
| Main - msg db 'Computer Address',0xa - operating system talk (2) |
| Lili~ ♥ |
| ||
|
Normal User
Queen Lesbian of Kafuka Level: 160    
Posts: 243/8412 EXP: 52929450 Next: 23549 Since: 01-06-12 Last post: 2967 days Last view: 1489 days |
That's one topic to be expected I guess. I'm not asking "what operating system do you use" (we know that from the poll already), but discuss the background a bit.
As for me I kinda grew up with a system with Windows 95, and as we had quite a lot of old MS-DOS applications I came to learn that system as well. Eventually I switched to Windows 98, and then made the big leap to XP, which I've stuck with since. My point is, modern Windowses like 7 are unusable to me. Why? Because there are so many wizards and helpers and so much changed that I cannot get along with it at all. I need some kind of expert mode which there isn't in 7. Also, some stuff just plain doesn't work, like when I tried to install the network printer, it worked like a charm for every operating system, only 7 refused to install it under any circumstances. (Eventually I found a long and convoluted workaround which did the job for me,... but it took ages.) I guess for someone who's new to computers 7 may be a miracle, but not for me. I don't even know what I'll do if Windows XP at some point stops being supported... I'll have to see. |
| Kiyoshi |
| ||
|
Normal User
HEY HEY HEY STAY OUTTA MAH SHED Level: 65
Posts: 393/1016 EXP: 2222559 Next: 113069 Since: 01-02-12 Last post: 4598 days Last view: 4569 days |
I can do everything in 7 what I can do in XP, and even more.
Some things are better hidden to make it less scary for the average user, but everything is there, and improved (things like System Restore and Network Setup really suck on XP). You can often find things faster than in XP just by typing in the Start Menu. But if you really want everything in one place, you can enable God Mode. I do recommend Windows 7 for its much better security though. Always working under Admin mode in XP is dangerous, and having to use "Run As..." every time is cumbersome, as in XP, you will have to enter your password every time (same as Mac OS X/Linux). In Windows 7 it is just a click, proving its user-friendliness. Windows XP will be supported until April 2014. ____________________ I don't give a flying feather |
| Nicole |
| ||
|
Administrator
Goddess of the Apocalypse Level: 200
Posts: 98/14042 EXP: 114185083 Next: 944306 Since: 01-03-12 From: Boston, MA Last post: 470 days Last view: 470 days |
♥98 ✿4709 ★52 XP just feels really clunky to me, whereas 7 kind of overdoes it in the other direction... really in some ways Vista is a happy medium, though admittedly in other ways it is an atrocity. 
Last summer I bought a MacBook Air only for the form factor, but I'm actually finding OS X very nice... except for the fact that customization is so limited, and the Finder is really quite inferior to Windows Explorer in my experience. (It's like it's trying to be like Windows Explorer, but is unwilling to give up customs from the old "Classic" Mac Finder, so kind of ends up in an unhappy medium) |
| Lili~ ♥ |
| ||
|
Normal User
Queen Lesbian of Kafuka Level: 160
Posts: 244/8412 EXP: 52929450 Next: 23549 Since: 01-06-12 Last post: 2967 days Last view: 1489 days |
Posted by Kiyoshi I can't speak for System Restore, as I don't use that. I agree that Network Setup is kind of a hassle in XP (it requires changing crap in secpol.msc that a normal user would never dare figuring out). 7 might have the upper hand there. Posted by Kiyoshi XP and Linux aren't comparable. Linux' user system is so much more convenient, if you try to do something you don't have permission for, it will pop up a convenient password dialog and you can continue as normal, and even for the Terminal a single sudo command will get you into the admin realms. As opposed to XP which just gives you the finger with a "insufficient rights, go away". 7 kinda went into the opposite direction. Instead of just taking the Linux user system, they castrated the admin account to the point where it hardly deserves the name "Administrator". You cannot change things in the Windows folder, you get tons of pop-ups, and just... urgh. In XP I can always be adminstrator if I want, and in Linux I can always log on as root (though there's really no reason to since their user system is so excellently designed). Posted by Kiyoshi I was more thinking of applications actually. Some new ones start to be Vista/7 only. |
| Epele |
| ||
|
Site Administrator
The Sorceress. Boing~ Level: 237
Posts: 389/20774 EXP: 205513687 Next: 2465247 Since: 01-01-12 From: UK Last post: 1055 days Last view: 5 hours |
I started with Windows 95.. then ME which was promptly swapped for Windows XP.
Then I got my own system during the Windows XP era. I got quite used to doing various small "advanced" tweaks here and there. Some of my tweaks are done via regedit. Windows 7 is what I use now.. Like before, various tweaks to get as close to an XP-like feel as possible. As for a lack of expert modes? Ever looked for a bunch of programs out there? One of my favourites is Autoruns for disabling half the shit that auto-runs on start up. A lot of it is just preloader crap, which came to attention thanks to Process Explorer being better than Task Manager. The world could always use more heroes! |
| Kiyoshi |
| ||
|
Normal User
HEY HEY HEY STAY OUTTA MAH SHED Level: 65
Posts: 395/1016 EXP: 2222559 Next: 113069 Since: 01-02-12 Last post: 4598 days Last view: 4569 days |
Posted by LilianaThere is a Run As command in XP if you right-click on an icon, which asks for a password, just like Linux and Mac. And that is exactly where Windows 7's UAC comes in! Programs can just ask for admin rights, you don't have to type the password every time, just a single click, which is secured so it can not be spoofed, is enough. UAC got a bad name because it was badly implemented in Vista, and so far everyone I know who sticks to XP does not understand its importance and user-friendliness. Why? Because the first user account on XP is always administrator, and people are used to that. This means every program runs with admin rights, making web browsers, download managers, and every other program that uses the web in some way, a convenient way for viruses to install themselves on your PC without anything to stop them. Why is Linux (and Mac OS X for that matter) safer? Because they are not used on enough computers to be a profitable target. This is changing for Macs though, the first Mac botnet has been around for a few years already. ____________________ I don't give a flying feather |
| Lili~ ♥ |
| ||
|
Normal User
Queen Lesbian of Kafuka Level: 160
Posts: 246/8412 EXP: 52929450 Next: 23549 Since: 01-06-12 Last post: 2967 days Last view: 1489 days |
Posted by Kiyoshi Yeah but it's hardly any user friendly, starting from how you have to explicitly select it every time. Who would do that? Posted by Kiyoshi Microsoft was really retarded there. XP was meant to cover the userbase that previously used Windows 9x, which didn't have a user system. So while you do have to create a user during the post-setup steps, they decided to make it have admin rights by default, so 1. the userbase wouldn't have to change their habits, and 2. old 9x applications would continue to work (which are stupid reasons, IMO). If it had user rights by default then the whole dilemma would've never happened and the world would be better. But even then, it wouldn't have improved much, because 1. the very first time after installing you're logged on as the Administrator account which allows you to ruin everything already, and 2. the post-setup instructions can be skipped by shutting down the computer or going into Safe Mode beforehand, which leaves you with only the Administrator account. I think that was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes. Posted by Kiyoshi That is true. I never claimed they were safer, just more user friendly. |
| Kiyoshi |
| ||
|
Normal User
HEY HEY HEY STAY OUTTA MAH SHED Level: 65
Posts: 396/1016 EXP: 2222559 Next: 113069 Since: 01-02-12 Last post: 4598 days Last view: 4569 days |
Posted by LilianaI always tick "Skip OOBE" in nLite
My main point was UAC though, which you seemed to ignore... XP-stickers are usually against it because they don't understand it; a simple click is really much more convenient than having to type your password every time, and much safer than working with admin rights all the time. An alternative is to opt-out programs of admin rights with DropMyRights. But XP still does not facilitate an option for programs to request admin rights themselves. ____________________ I don't give a flying feather |
| Epele |
| ||
|
Site Administrator
The Sorceress. Boing~ Level: 237
Posts: 391/20774 EXP: 205513687 Next: 2465247 Since: 01-01-12 From: UK Last post: 1055 days Last view: 5 hours |
Posted by Kiyoshi I thought about disabling that, but decided it's a great safeguard against some rogue programs.  The world could always use more heroes! |
| Lili~ ♥ |
| ||
|
Normal User
Queen Lesbian of Kafuka Level: 160
Posts: 249/8412 EXP: 52929450 Next: 23549 Since: 01-06-12 Last post: 2967 days Last view: 1489 days |
My point is the following: the Administrator account in Vista and 7 has no write access to the Windows folder. If you want to change something there (and yes, there are legitimate reasons to do so), you can't, no matter what you do. For me, that is a serious defect. |
| Kiyoshi |
| ||
|
Normal User
HEY HEY HEY STAY OUTTA MAH SHED Level: 65
Posts: 397/1016 EXP: 2222559 Next: 113069 Since: 01-02-12 Last post: 4598 days Last view: 4569 days |
Admin has write access to the Windows folder.
But you may not change the Windows OS files there. This was already the case in XP, which has Windows File Protection as well. Unless you hacked it out of XP, which is indeed a lot easier to do, as you don't need TrustedInstaller rights. Ever seen Windows XP asking for its installation CD because system files got corrupted? You can trigger the scan manually by typing:
____________________ I don't give a flying feather |
| Lili~ ♥ |
| ||
|
Normal User
Queen Lesbian of Kafuka Level: 160
Posts: 250/8412 EXP: 52929450 Next: 23549 Since: 01-06-12 Last post: 2967 days Last view: 1489 days |
Windows File Protection isn't that bad, concept-wise, it does its job and you could still do your stuff. The problem is that it's too easy to circumvent, by deleting the sfc files itself it's rendered useless (since for some reason it cannot restore itself) and malicious software can do whatever it wants. |
| Nadia |
| ||
|
Normal User
Axew Level: 23
Posts: 17/93 EXP: 61533 Next: 6190 Since: 01-05-12 From: Denmark Last post: 2356 days Last view: 1274 days |
I must say I prefer the Linux permissions system as well.
Knowing that you are running as a restricted user and explicitly have to give programs permission to run as root by entering the root account's password is nice, in my opinion. I also want to point out that sudo actually has a timeout; When you've entered the password once, you can use sudo all you want in a limited amount of time without having to type your password again.
You couldn't use the administrator account on Linux for your everyday stuff like you can on XP, though, as the root user can do literally anything. For example, dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sda (Might've gotten that slightly wrong) would work and what it would do would be overwrite your entire hard drive with NULLs.
So, there are ups and downs to both of them. Windows' permissions system is more user-friendly, (but as far as I can tell, less secure), Linux' permissions system is secure, but it can be cumbersome to some users. |
| Kiyoshi |
| ||
|
Normal User
HEY HEY HEY STAY OUTTA MAH SHED Level: 65
Posts: 398/1016 EXP: 2222559 Next: 113069 Since: 01-02-12 Last post: 4598 days Last view: 4569 days |
Posted by LilianaNot in 7, because of the TrustedInstaller rights, and WinSxS. Also, a program needs to have system access first to do this. Which kind of involves being on the other side of Raymond Chen's airtight hatchway already. UAC will prevent this if you click No. Also, for all the hex-edits you can do in XP are better alternatives. RAID-hack: use hardware/host-raid, it's on nearly every motherboard. Theme-hack: WindowBlinds, as wel as the other StarDock utilities. TCP/IP-hack: File sharing software can cope with it for years now. Good thing because Windows Update keeps resetting it. USB-polling frequency hack: only needed with some high-DPI wired (not wireless) gaming mice, which come with software to cope with it. SFC hack: not needed if you are not going to do any hacks. I never bothered to look for Windows 7 hacks as everything I want to adjust is in the registry anyway (not all parts of the registry in 7 are accessible for admin, but admin can grant himself access to them, hah )____________________ I don't give a flying feather |
| Nadia |
| ||
|
Normal User
Axew Level: 23
Posts: 18/93 EXP: 61533 Next: 6190 Since: 01-05-12 From: Denmark Last post: 2356 days Last view: 1274 days |
Posted by KiyoshiThis is what I don't like about Windows' permissions. Admin should be admin and have all rights to do anything, you shouldn't have to mess around to get said rights. |
| Acmlm |
| |||||||||||
Retired Staff
 Red Goomba Flipping paper plumber Level: 15
Posts: 27/35 EXP: 14215 Next: 2169 Since: 12-30-11 Last post: 3869 days Last view: 3868 days |
|
| Kiyoshi |
| ||
|
Normal User
HEY HEY HEY STAY OUTTA MAH SHED Level: 65
Posts: 401/1016 EXP: 2222559 Next: 113069 Since: 01-02-12 Last post: 4598 days Last view: 4569 days |
Most of the bloat in 7 is either not installed by default (Windows Live Essentials) or easily removable with "remove windows features", which in fact lists a lot more than the similar list in XP.
XP has the more annoying bloatware in my opinion (MSN Explorer, Alexa Spyware, OOBE, Take a Tour, Windows Messenger, "net send" Messenger service etc.), but your reasons are quite good, considering you prefer the hardcore retro look & feel experience. And I don't want to argue too much with a master hacker like you ____________________ I don't give a flying feather |
| GreyMaria |
| ||
|
Normal User
~< Outta here. |
Posted by Kiyoshi Neither of these have ever existed on any of my XP machines. |
| Epele |
| ||
|
Site Administrator
The Sorceress. Boing~ Level: 237
Posts: 398/20774 EXP: 205513687 Next: 2465247 Since: 01-01-12 From: UK Last post: 1055 days Last view: 5 hours |
Posted by GreyMariaPosted by Kiyoshi XP tends to be bundled with shovelled software that varies per manufacturer. I managed to evade such software through blind luck. I've seen far worse for bloat than that. Some machines come with so much crap, you start up with about 80 processes.. I sit at about 55~ processes in Windows 7 in comparison. However, around 5 of those are all touch-screen related. The world could always use more heroes! |
| GreyMaria |
| ||
|
Normal User
~< Outta here. |
I'm running 49 processes on my WinXP machine, and that's with... a game, all this iTunes crap, Dropbox, a hide-processes-to-tray program, a systray clock replacer, an IRC client, and Firefox.
I can never understand how the fuck people manage to make it above 60 running processes. |
| Main - msg db 'Computer Address',0xa - operating system talk (2) |
 Acmlmboard v2.5.6 (06/11/2024) © 2005-2024 Acmlm, Emuz, et al. |
|
MySQL - queries: 194, rows: 621/653, time: 0.302 seconds. |
Level: 15