Lithium Kraft wrote:But he still has money.
What's wrong with that? He puts out very good products.
rogolo wrote:I respect the OS, but you gotta admit: XP (and Windows in general) is EXTREMELY vulnerable to viruses and there is a lot that needs to be improved in future versions (i.e. Longhorn).
Well, I'll not get into the Mac vs. Windows debate at the behest of the mods, but in defense of Windows, Mac OS X would be as troubled by problems were it the most proliferous desktop-user operating system out there, too. There are ALREADY viruses out there for the Macintosh, if Mac OS X were on 95% of all user PC's, it'd be in the same shape.
Secondly, Windows on it's own does surprisingly well. The firewall that comes with Windows isn't this peice of paper that most people think it is. Most ports aren't closed, they're "stealthed" by the Windows Firewall. My second desktop at home runs only the Windows Firewall, and it hasn't suffered a hiccup since.
Finally, it really isn't hard to secure a Windows-run PC. Spybot: Search and Destroy
and Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware Beta 1
make an unstoppable force against adware and spyware, while Free AVG
and/or BitDefender 8 Free Edition
make for excellent free antivirus solutions. I've never had a problem with my PC. It has been such a pleasure to work on, it's... it's really gonna be kind of sad when I'm forced to upgrade...
Anyways. One thing I do agree with you on, though, is Microsoft doesn't have a very good security... um... "division," if you will. In my opinion, they need to (and are going to) release a Microsoft anti-virus scanner. By the time Vista rolls around, the Windows Firewall, the Windows AntiSpyware, and the Windows AntiVirus applications should be fully integrated into the Windows Security center. Microsoft should also be releasing security updates every few days, as opposed to every month with the release of Windows Updates.
In addition, I feel that Windows should come with an "Installation Manager" of sorts. Installations would take place only through the use of .msi files, no more .exe installation files. When said .msi file would be run, it would take you through the installation process as usual, until it began copying files. From here, the .msi file would send each file through the Installation Manager, and the Installation Manager (as opposed to the setup file itself) would write the necessary files to the hard drive. The .msi file would tell the Installation Manager the product ID (required), the vendor ID (optional, but recommended) and the location and name of all files, folders, and subfolders that the program needs. ALL files seeking permission to be written to the hard disk would HAVE to go through the Installation Manager.
This would be advantageous in that, if, for some reason future programs didn't give the user the ability to alter certain, utilized file pathways, he or she could simply tell the Installation Manager to perform a move command on a specified file or folder (and all subfolders), and he or she could also tell it to default all files being written to the previous location to simply be moved to the final, user-defined location.
Hot damn. I'm a genius.
This does have connotations to the thread, though. Better organization of a computer, particularly when this "organization" requires user input will lead to users knowing what goes where. As outlandish as it may sound, I know where to get anything I need. I very rarely need the Windows "Search" function. Though I've not had it happen in a long
time, I'd be able to INSTANTLY notice a "new" folder that cropped up in my "Program Files" directory.
So, there you have it. User-defined installation directories and application-accessed directories are a benefit to computing as a whole. So how about it, guys? Editable file pathways? Please?
...My two cents.
PS: Dells rule.
Last edited Fri, 28th Oct 2005, 1:12am; edited 1 times in total.