Windows--98, 2000, ME, XP???

TerryinMD · Oct 20, 2001

Yes, that is what MS is basically recommending for XP.

However, no matter what version of Windows you are running, the more memory you have - the better. The difference between running 128MB vs 256MB is very obvious. Nowdays, you can buy 128MB SDRAM for $29-39. That's cheap.

I have an 800mh PIII with 256MB and XP loads and is ready to go in a minute or so (to the login screen). Much faster than ME.

[Soapbox]

Todays programmers are lazy!!!! They take the easy way out because they figure that hardware is cheap and you can just add more resources. Why optimize code!!! They forget that most people just want their machines to work and not have to fuss to make them work effeciently.

[Off soapbox]

Terry

scruffy · Oct 20, 2001

Memory....Windows versions are limited. ME runs into problems normally at anything over 512mb RAM memory installed, although I have an AMD 850mhz with 640mb ram running, and a like machine (both using KT7 Pro 2A M/B's) running WIN98 SE SP1 using 640mb ram memory also. The general rule is you will start getting out of memory errors over the 512MB mark. The limitation comes in when the config program will ONLY let you enter 999MB...no matter what your mainboard will support. Windows pukes on the higher amounts of RAM.
Linux will run 64gigabytes ram before you have to modify the kernel....once software gets ported for it, which do YOU think will be the better O/S for heavy hitting CAD programs etc.?

JayC · Oct 20, 2001

More RAM is always a nice thing. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif But, if you get too much RAM that could lead to hardware/software conflicts. That is one thing about alot of RAM that troubles me. Actually, that is the one thing that bothers me about any hardware upgrade. I just replaced my modem about a month ago already. Had a hard choice to make in choosing the right modem. Luckily the one I got works rather well...so far.

GlueGuy · Oct 20, 2001

Glenmac,

Been sitting this one out. See there is the usual diversity of opinion here at TBN.

If I were buying a new machine today, I'd probably just get it with XP. Contrary to what some have said, it is probably the most secure and stable version of Windows ever produced. I've used Windows NT/2000 since it was a public beta way back when. Even the early versions were (generally) better than OS/2 at the time.

If you get a new machine with it installed, you should not even have to do the system registration, as all machines getting it installed at the factory should have it pre-registered.

Be careful about getting a machine with Win9x (including ME). There is no guarantee of it being upgradable to XP unless you do a lot of homework checking it out before hand.

The GlueGuy

scruffy · Oct 20, 2001

GlueGuy, I have no problems at all with your statement that XP is a stable platform....not a one! I do have a problem with the fact that it is ALSO a seive! It is a hackers dream. I have three machines capable of running XP, but not a one of them will ever see it. WINME is a joke, the antithesis of XP's stability. 98 SE, while not a GREAT O/S, is much more stable than ME ever dreamed. It is also more secure, but ANY windows O/S needs a firewall to tighten it up, PARTICULARLY XP!
I am openly against the M$ O/S's and their policies. I make no bones about that....but each to his own.

GlueGuy · Oct 21, 2001

Scruffy,

We couldn't disagree more on the security of 98se versus XP. 98se has virtually no protections whatsoever. XP is by no means perfect, but it is at least an order of magnitude better than 98se.

If you want an OS that is safer, go to OS/X, or NSK. Obscurity is the safer place to be; not enough targets; too hard to find expertise.

The GlueGuy

TerryinMD · Oct 21, 2001

All OS's have their issues!!

Not one is safe from any hacker without intimate knowledge of the OS and constant deligence. That is the crux of the problem. Most of us (the general public) do not have the temperance and fortitude to keep up with firewalls, upgrades, etc. to keep the home computer safe. Especially when you have your kids getting emails and cruising the internet. It's almost impossible.

I try to keep up with security upgrades for the OS and important applications and get VirusScan DAT files quite often. In the 8 or so years having a home computer, we have detected a virus 2 or three times. Very lucky.

I would venture to say that most people turn off the automatic update features for the Windows OS's because people "hate" having to be reminded to upgrade. Plus, heaven forbid, that they would be inconvenienced by a download to secure their system. Might have to walk away from your machine and talk to a family member while the update occurs. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

OS's, tractor color, politics, and religion..... slippery slopes at times as open discussions..../w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

I work in a mixed Unix and Windows environment. Trying to get these two camps to integrate applications over the different platforms is like getting the Israeli's and Palestinians to sit at a conference table. Almost pathetic.... They fail to realize that they're supposed to support the enterprise and sometimes one platform is more appropriate that the other. My, my, my....

Terry

scruffy · Oct 21, 2001

One of many such concerns:
Windows XP Home Edition
Must be Made More Secure

Page last modified: Aug 31, 2001 at 14:37 by Steve Gibson

TechTV asked me to briefly explain my concerns
about Windows XP and its threatened support
for unrestricted full raw sockets.

Playing Time: 4 min. (See Media page for help)

WMV Video: 6.7 MB MP3 Audio: 0.9 MB
(Right Click on the link to SAVE the file before viewing.)

I believe that Microsoft and I have been locked
in a misunderstanding. But it is one that is too
important to ignore . . . and not too late to fix!

Due to a misunderstanding right from the start, Microsoft and I have been talking about different issues relating to raw sockets: I have been saying that raw sockets are not necessary and are dangerous, while Microsoft has been saying that they are necessary and are no more dangerous than alternatives.

Each of us, from our perspective, has been
correct, but we have been talking about
different aspects of raw sockets.
I have been talking about USER access to raw sockets being dangerous and unnecessary, while Microsoft has been talking about SYSTEM access to raw sockets being necessary, and no more dangerous than other networking technologies available in the system.

What's so odd about this . . . is that we agree with each other!

Please take a look at this page containing excerpts from Microsoft's own current web pages explaining how all access to raw sockets is deliberately restricted to administrative users.

It is clear that raw sockets are not necessary for typical personal computer users, and that Microsoft themselves never intended common users to have them. This is in keeping with traditional industry-wide support for the Berkeley raw socket interface.

Ask yourself this: If the raw socket interface, originated at U.C. Berkeley 20 years ago, were not a security risk for users, for systems, and for the Internet, then WHY has this interface always been restricted from casual use everywhere it has ever appeared?

I have NO PROBLEM with RESTRICTED access to the raw socket interface, and no problem with the SYSTEM having access to the interface. That is traditionally what has always been done on Unix, Linux, and similar systems and, as we have seen on Microsoft's own pages, in Windows.

But HERE is what has suddenly changed:

Under the Home Edition of Windows XP,
ALL users are Administrators by default.
Microsoft's reasons for doing this are clear, reasonable, and understandable: Many Windows 9x/ME legacy applications would fail to operate within an environment that suddenly imposes security restrictions. Microsoft's solution to this for Windows XP has been to run all users in the system as administrators.

For much more detailed information of the problem, read the article at: http://http://grc.com/dos/winxp.htm As previously stated, there are many such reviews on different techie boards. All pointing to the fact of XP's being an open portal to your computer. While some may maintain XP's security is the best since..... I will not take that stance, until this area at least is taken out of XP common user access.

Edited by scruffy on 10/21/01 11:53 AM (server time).

MossRoad · Oct 21, 2001

It seems if I wait a while, I can get machines with XP.

It seems if you wait a while you will only get machines with XP. We attempted to purchase 2000 Professional at my office last week and were told Microsoft is pulling it from the shelves in order to force all into XP. Has anyone else heard this?

 MossRoad

MikePA · Oct 21, 2001

Yep, I heard the same thing. I just bought 2 desktops from Gateway for my church and it took a while rooting through their site to find ones that came with Win2K.