Laptop or Netbook?

kwikbreaks

silkcutblue wrote: »

What vista gives in security it takes away in every other aspect - hence the huge problems.

As such it's not a bad thing that a netbook comes with XP and not Vista. That is a plus point.

I looked at being able to get XP rather than Vista on my netbook as a positive advantage. (I have a Vista laptop and desktop and detest it). No windows operating system will be 100% secure as being the most used it is under constant attack from hackers and is a series of new bits and pieces cobbled onto an old base rather than being designed with security in mind from the bottom up. If you want secure take the linux or MAC route.

The main reason that netbooks run XP rather than Vista is that Vista is such a resource hog a typical netbook (1.6GHz Atom processor and 1GB ram) simply wouldn't have the grunt to run Vista smoothly. Linux needs even less resource so even cheaper processors are possible such as the Via C3 with a 4GB SSD and 512MB ram.

[Deleted User]

bribrian wrote: »

Is this true, i always thought Vista was a load of ****.........

Yes, it is. There are many changes to the architecture to make it that way, with the most obvious trying to stop idiots from using admin accounts all of the time. XP can be set up to be quite secure, but it's still flawed from the outset really.

kwikbreaks

Strange then that the take up of Vista by the professionals (business) has been so poor. UAC is such a PITA that many turn it off - why did MS allow that?

[Deleted User]

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Strange then that the take up of Vista by the professionals (business) has been so poor. UAC is such a PITA that many turn it off - why did MS allow that?

There's multiple factors, but at a guess I'd imagine the global economic downturn has pushed IT hardware and software upgrades to a very low priority..

I don't see how it's much different to being prompted for your password on Linux or OS X, just under Vista it was a bit more militant in it's approach. That shouldn't come as any surprise though when you've got the task of steering independent software developers into the correct way to write software, rather than the easiest.

kwikbreaks

You can't blame the recession - Vista launched January 2007. That said most IT departments hold fire on a new opsys for a while so the recesssion could be a factor - especially considering many PCs would need a hardware upgrade too.

UAC is not as secure as Ubuntu or OS/X which always ask for the password rather than just requiring a button click which many will just regard as a nuisance and do automatically until their mate tells them they can turn it off.

The world judged Vista to be a big disappointment. Windows 7 is getting a better reception initially. MS need it too because another Vista could see the unthinkable - MS starting the slippery slope to oblivion.

Jaffa.

silkcutblue wrote: »

As such it's not a bad thing that a netbook comes with XP and not Vista. That is a plus point.

I saw a Sony one with Vista on it It was slowww.

I would say netbook as they make laptops kinda redundant

[Deleted User]

kwikbreaks wrote: »

You can't blame the recession - Vista launched January 2007. That said most IT departments hold fire on a new opsys for a while so the recesssion could be a factor - especially considering many PCs would need a hardware upgrade too.

An organisation wouldn't usually consider rolling out a new operating system until after the first service pack, which in Vista's case was February 2008, by which time the inertia of the problems in the economy were in full flow.

UAC is not as secure as Ubuntu or OS/X which always ask for the password rather than just requiring a button click which many will just regard as a nuisance and do automatically until their mate tells them they can turn it off.

What about other Linux distro's, are they any less secure than Ubuntu?

Both methods serve the same purpose; to make the user authorise changes to their machine. The inherent flaw with both of these methods is the user. With an understanding of what is happening then the methods work as intended, however if the user is ignorant/doesn't care then neither willbe effective and the potential for damage through malicious software is significantly increased.

John_Gray

Rich44 wrote: »

This is quite a peach for £299
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/167514

Did you not notice the significant downside?
Software

• No Operating System Installed

And the discussion seems to indicate that installing Ubuntu (for example) on it may have problems...

kwikbreaks

anewhope wrote: »

What about other Linux distro's, are they any less secure than Ubuntu?

Both methods serve the same purpose; to make the user authorise changes to their machine. The inherent flaw with both of these methods is the user. With an understanding of what is happening then the methods work as intended, however if the user is ignorant/doesn't care then neither willbe effective and the potential for damage through malicious software is significantly increased.

You'd generally need to SU to root if the Linux version didn't use the Ubuntu / OS/X approach. I'm no linux guru only have played with Ubuntu so I'm not sure how most handle it. Certainly nobody with any sense would run as root all the time.

I'd say more thought is needed to type in a password than just click an OK button. The Vista way of doing it encourages users to be sloppy (plus it often asks then asks again which is even more irritating).