What Think You Of Windows Xp-95-98-2000

[abhiram 0]

Windows XP keeps crashing on me and SP2 is serious crap, it's slow and creates more bugs than it fixes.

Hi xboxrulz,

Now that's a matter of opinion . I've seen a lot of people saying 2000 is much better than XP and stuff like that... I've actually seen some computers with dual boot which ran 2000 much faster and efficiently than XP. It ultimately boils down to your hardware and the way you use your computer. Since I bought my first computer 2 years ago, I reinstalled XP only twice. I actually find SP2 much better than XP... there are some subtle issues that have been fixed... makes it better to use.

On the same computer I tried to have 2000 as well, but it would hang in between for upto 5 min and sometimes it would just restart. So, I got rid of it and haven't used it again.

No offense at all, but I feel that if your computer is relatively new and has atleast 256MB RAM, you should try WinXP with SP2 as a clean and fresh install. I don't mean you should get rid of Win2000, but if you ever do think of a reformat and reinstall, just try winXP with complete updates... you might like it. And if you don't, you can always go back to win2000 .

[qwijibow 0]

IMO, winXP has all the capabilities to secure a system just as well as GNU/Linux, but it doesn't make it compulsory like Linux.

You should see some of the great things other Unix like operating systems have as a backup for the first line of defence in securety.

For example, chroot envoronments (AKA Jails) can be used to make solid bounderies around different applications. For example put Apache web server in a GNU/Linux chroot jail, and if Apache has a vulnrability, and is hacked. The so called hacker is isolated to a small area of the system.

FreeBSD takes this idea even firther with *ZONES*.
Similar to a chroot Jail, except limits can be places on other resourcesa zone can take, for example CPU time, and physical memory.

GCC, (the GNU compiler) uses stack randomisation, meaning smashing the stack on un-checked buffers is virtually uimpossable.

If Windows Compilers did this, virii like MS.Blast, and other worms could not have spread my MS's RPC exploit.

Projecst like GRSecurety GATE-Keeper, and SELinux add extra constraints around applications. They know exactly what areas of the disk an application is allowed to use.
They Know what SYSTEM calls an application may need to use.

And if a *hacked* program attepmts to make a system call ists not allowed to (for example the fork() call, which almost all virii / explits use) then the compromised programs are terminated.

The home partiton is by default mounted as noexec.
The ssytem will flat out refuse to execute any program which is not owned by root, and lives on a users partiton.

So email virii just dont have a chance.

To add the abouve securety features to Windows would take a LOT of work.

But they are moving towards these securety idea's slowly, for example in Windows Vista, The web browser runs with reduced privilages.

*Nix has been doing this since the WWW was put into use... but never late than never.

Windows was designed as a cheap home use Operating system,
And its good at its job.

But when you start trying to use it as a web server, or it becomes the target of virii writers, its a little out off its depth.

[abhiram 0]

To add the abouve securety features to Windows would take a LOT of work.

Exactly... that's why nobody does it for fun. There are people using Windows Servers and securing them, but definitely not for home use.

Of course, making it as secure as Linux is a little too difficult. This is because, when unix was made, it was made with security in mind. Security (and not usability) was the core issue and it was what prompted the early developers to enforce security to each and every piece of the OS. Subsequent adaptations like Linux and BSD take it much further.

The fundamental flaw with a windows OS IMO is that it was never meant to be secure. It was meant to be easy to use and pleasing to look at. The developers didn't want people to see a black screen with white characters on it.... they wanted people to look at it and go 'Wow!!! That looks great!'. With improved versions, they realised their folly and are now slowly approaching better security.

GNU/Linux on the other hand was more like 'who needs a beautiful picture, nobody can break into this system... my research files are safe.' It wasn't targeted to be the common everyday home usage OS. Of late, within the past decade, it's been coming up like crazy and with distros like SuSE, you get just about the same functionality with aesthetic appeal as Windows with the security of GNU/Linux.

The average home user doesn't need chroot jails ... he needs to be able to type a document and print it, surf the net, and (the biggest problem of all) he doesn't want to learn anything about computers! Let's face it.... the gross majority of the people in the world don't want to learn how or why something happens... all they want is their computer to work and do the things they want it to do. If it doesn't or it says 'You nitwit, go read the manual before you lay hands on me', people are annoyed with it. The average Windows user will never ever type anything in the console (command prompt if you like). Everything is done using the mouse. Not so in GNU/Linux, you need to know some basic commands no matter how well it's been set up. You shouldn't have to call an authorised serviceman to install a program.

Well... just my point of view. Now, don't get me wrong, I use Linux just as well and have been using Slackware for 6 months now... It's just my opinion that Windows and GNU/Linux are different in their purposes and target different customers.

Cheers .

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

abhiram is quite true, but Linux was also built for usability. Yet, it's like Windows is chaffeuring you to use your computer, you don't actually take the keys and "drive" the computer.As for your earlier post, true that Windows 2000 does crash often, but SP2 crashes alot. My hardware is far from new, it is 3 years old, they don't even sell the RAM I need.xboxrulz

[wutske 0]

Win95 is old and there are only few usefull programs still working on it. Also it doesn't support too much hardware anymore.Win98SE still rules on slower machines, there are lots of programs and drivers for it, and it's fast and pretty simple.Win2k boots slow (note, I've only used the server editions), but overal speed is okay, it can be better.WinXP, no comment, not realy secure (you can make it secure tough), rather fast, but sometimes buggy.