Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Martin_1962]

Serious issues with DOS support and games support

[Marks DTM Calib]

What does it offer me that XP does not........that I need......

As for apples....I hate the dam things.....especialy th ones that have extended USB ports on the keyboard which dont have enough chuff to even drive a dam mouse....now thats CRAP design......

[Martin_1962]

What does it offer me that XP does not........that I need......

As for apples....I hate the dam things.....especialy th ones that have extended USB ports on the keyboard which dont have enough chuff to even drive a dam mouse....now thats CRAP design......

I dislike Golden Delicious, like slightly red ones

[Del Boy]

probs we've noticed, as said gaming support is very bad i play a game called Medal Of Honour spearhead now this played fine on my old HP and plays fine on my acer also plays fine on my XP desktop computer and on vista was terrible jumpy and it supports no other games that wasn't for vista like XP supported 2000/ME 98 games some that even worked on windows 95 like battlezone2 and battlezone 1 (great games) other probs consist of,    

1. Self-limiting software
2. Vanishing functionality through invalidation
3. Removal of media capabilities
4. Problem-solving prohibited
5. Limited mobility
6. One transfer only
    and a bonus,
7. Restrictions on your rights to use MPEG-4 video  sorry if i used posh words  

[Del Boy]

btw why is some of the writing in red? :-?

[TheBoy]

One caveat is that they've changed the authentication standard for SMB/CIFS which now defaults to NTLMv2, causing my samba shares to fail inexplicably. All that was required to fix that one was a group policy object change allowing auto negotiation of both NTLMv1 and v2, but it wasn't exactly obvious.

MS have been shouting use NTLMv2 for years.  Samba has supported it for years.  Tut tut  (and Vista isn't the first MS OS to default to NTLMv2)

[MaxV6]

What does it offer me that XP does not........that I need......

As for apples....I hate the dam things.....especialy th ones that have extended USB ports on the keyboard which dont have enough chuff to even drive a dam mouse....now thats CRAP design......

1) better security.
2) better OS stability when an application crashes.,.. if one app crashes, you don;t loose anything on another just because the OS froze with the 1st App crash/
3) Virii  what virri?
4) trojans?  nope
5) As something of a sideline, I do Mac Support for several major educational establishment's music and creative arts departments... covering several hundred Macs , and almost as many PC's (most IT support depts are useless with Application specific or specialist hardware support....  so Audio systems usually confuse the hell out of them )  never have i found a mouse , or trackball, that wouldn't run from the keyboard hub sockets.   more like crap mouse design or faulty IMHO.  Floppy drives and card readers, no that's sometime another matter, it is however model dependent, like older G3 iMacs , their USB busses were, admittedly somewhat wimpy... but in all fairness, that was when USB1 was a new fangled thing.... and even then i never found a Mouse that it couldn't support (assuming Mac compatibility or true class compliancy are claimed. ) One or two earlier USB graphics tablets had some issues, creating high CPU loads, but they were to do with the scanning rate of the tablet , and a driver incompatibility,  not the mac OS or hardware.

6 I'm not picking a fight, i was just making a point....

thus the Nomex suit....   I know how easily "disturbed" some PC users are   8-)

it's not like it's the dark side of the force.

Max

[TheBoy]

2) better OS stability when an application crashes.,.. if one app crashes, you don;t loose anything on another just because the OS froze with the 1st App crash/

Same as NT based Windows, inc NT, W2K, XP, W2K3

3) Virii  what virri?
4) trojans?  nope

Mac has seen its fair share of worms, virii, and trojans....

[Paul M]

One caveat is that they've changed the authentication standard for SMB/CIFS which now defaults to NTLMv2, causing my samba shares to fail inexplicably. All that was required to fix that one was a group policy object change allowing auto negotiation of both NTLMv1 and v2, but it wasn't exactly obvious.

MS have been shouting use NTLMv2 for years.  Samba has supported it for years.  Tut tut  (and Vista isn't the first MS OS to default to NTLMv2)

Yeah but it's a home network we're talking about here, ultimate internal security isn't really a concern and Samba defaults to NTLMv1. I'd expect most, if not all, enterprise environments to be on Kerberos authentication by now anyway.

Vista may not be the first to default to NTLMv2, but it appears to be the first to default to requiring it, and as is often the case the error messages are less than helpful.

[Paul M]

2) better OS stability when an application crashes.,.. if one app crashes, you don;t loose anything on another just because the OS froze with the 1st App crash/

Same as NT based Windows, inc NT, W2K, XP, W2K3

3) Virii  what virri?
4) trojans?  nope

Mac has seen its fair share of worms, virii, and trojans....

I agree that NT is pretty stable, although it does require rebooting way too often (almost every time there's an update, i.e. "patch tuesday").

To be fair Mac OS X has no known viruses in the wild. Yes there are flaws, but no actual exploits in the wild. Previous versions of Mac had their fair share of problems, but those are a very different beast to OS X -- security was almost non-existent as was process separation etc. OS X is based on FreeBSD with bits of NeXT in there, a very stable OS with reasonable security. It's not OpenBSD, but then how many people use that as a desktop OS?

[TheBoy]

One caveat is that they've changed the authentication standard for SMB/CIFS which now defaults to NTLMv2, causing my samba shares to fail inexplicably. All that was required to fix that one was a group policy object change allowing auto negotiation of both NTLMv1 and v2, but it wasn't exactly obvious.

MS have been shouting use NTLMv2 for years.  Samba has supported it for years.  Tut tut  (and Vista isn't the first MS OS to default to NTLMv2)

Yeah but it's a home network we're talking about here, ultimate internal security isn't really a concern and Samba defaults to NTLMv1. I'd expect most, if not all, enterprise environments to be on Kerberos authentication by now anyway.

Vista may not be the first to default to NTLMv2, but it appears to be the first to default to requiring it, and as is often the case the error messages are less than helpful.

W2K3 required it as default - unfortuantely, that killed its cluster service, good old MS :p

Even with Kerberos, NTLM is still used within Windows, not entirely sure about Vista

[TheBoy]

2) better OS stability when an application crashes.,.. if one app crashes, you don;t loose anything on another just because the OS froze with the 1st App crash/

Same as NT based Windows, inc NT, W2K, XP, W2K3

3) Virii  what virri?
4) trojans?  nope

Mac has seen its fair share of worms, virii, and trojans....

I agree that NT is pretty stable, although it does require rebooting way too often (almost every time there's an update, i.e. "patch tuesday").

To be fair Mac OS X has no known viruses in the wild. Yes there are flaws, but no actual exploits in the wild. Previous versions of Mac had their fair share of problems, but those are a very different beast to OS X -- security was almost non-existent as was process separation etc. OS X is based on FreeBSD with bits of NeXT in there, a very stable OS with reasonable security. It's not OpenBSD, but then how many people use that as a desktop OS?

There was a big thing a few months ago, Mac OSX had its first real worm.

However, the fact that such malware is rare on OSX is a bad thing - it breeds comtempt, as it has in the past with Unix, and the hassles thats caused.

[Paul M]

2) better OS stability when an application crashes.,.. if one app crashes, you don;t loose anything on another just because the OS froze with the 1st App crash/

Same as NT based Windows, inc NT, W2K, XP, W2K3

3) Virii  what virri?
4) trojans?  nope

Mac has seen its fair share of worms, virii, and trojans....

I agree that NT is pretty stable, although it does require rebooting way too often (almost every time there's an update, i.e. "patch tuesday").

To be fair Mac OS X has no known viruses in the wild. Yes there are flaws, but no actual exploits in the wild. Previous versions of Mac had their fair share of problems, but those are a very different beast to OS X -- security was almost non-existent as was process separation etc. OS X is based on FreeBSD with bits of NeXT in there, a very stable OS with reasonable security. It's not OpenBSD, but then how many people use that as a desktop OS?

There was a big thing a few months ago, Mac OSX had its first real worm.

However, the fact that such malware is rare on OSX is a bad thing - it breeds comtempt, as it has in the past with Unix, and the hassles thats caused.

I never used Win2k3 (yet... have got a licenced copy of server) and I don't expect many did use it as a desktop OS except the few who needed a 64-bit version of XP.

As for the contempt in OS X... maybe, but it's a better model to begin with. I was rather surprised to discover that Vista *still* defaults to an administrative account when set up. OK it's effectively running as a limited user now via UAC until you click "continue" whenever admin rights are needed, but they appear so damn often that most non-savvy users will just automatically click it without stopping to think. OS X puts the initial account as a standard user in the sudoers list, so whenever priviledged access is required it brings up a prompt asking for your passord (a-la "run as..." on XP, but automatic). These prompts are far less common than UAC on Windows, and it works well as Unix has always been designed around the "use root only when required" mentality.

Vista is definitely better in that it overcomes some of the shortcomings of secondary logon in 2k/XP, but I think they've still got a lot of it wrong, one being that too many things bring up UAC prompts which generates complacency among what users will allow (or worse still will cause them to switch UAC off as several of the more savvy users I've spoken to have done).

[TheBoy]

2) better OS stability when an application crashes.,.. if one app crashes, you don;t loose anything on another just because the OS froze with the 1st App crash/

Same as NT based Windows, inc NT, W2K, XP, W2K3

3) Virii  what virri?
4) trojans?  nope

Mac has seen its fair share of worms, virii, and trojans....

I agree that NT is pretty stable, although it does require rebooting way too often (almost every time there's an update, i.e. "patch tuesday").

To be fair Mac OS X has no known viruses in the wild. Yes there are flaws, but no actual exploits in the wild. Previous versions of Mac had their fair share of problems, but those are a very different beast to OS X -- security was almost non-existent as was process separation etc. OS X is based on FreeBSD with bits of NeXT in there, a very stable OS with reasonable security. It's not OpenBSD, but then how many people use that as a desktop OS?

There was a big thing a few months ago, Mac OSX had its first real worm.

However, the fact that such malware is rare on OSX is a bad thing - it breeds comtempt, as it has in the past with Unix, and the hassles thats caused.

I never used Win2k3 (yet... have got a licenced copy of server) and I don't expect many did use it as a desktop OS except the few who needed a 64-bit version of XP.

As for the contempt in OS X... maybe, but it's a better model to begin with. I was rather surprised to discover that Vista *still* defaults to an administrative account when set up. OK it's effectively running as a limited user now via UAC until you click "continue" whenever admin rights are needed, but they appear so damn often that most non-savvy users will just automatically click it without stopping to think. OS X puts the initial account as a standard user in the sudoers list, so whenever priviledged access is required it brings up a prompt asking for your passord (a-la "run as..." on XP, but automatic). These prompts are far less common than UAC on Windows, and it works well as Unix has always been designed around the "use root only when required" mentality.

Vista is definitely better in that it overcomes some of the shortcomings of secondary logon in 2k/XP, but I think they've still got a lot of it wrong, one being that too many things bring up UAC prompts which generates complacency among what users will allow (or worse still will cause them to switch UAC off as several of the more savvy users I've spoken to have done).

OSX is based (not entirely) on Linux kernel, and Linux ain't great from a security standpoint.  Trouble is, everyone shouts at how wonderful and secure it is, so users do not take precautions, and thus well known kernel or GNU Linux flaws are left wide open.

I think UAC is a good compromise, bearing in mind most non Windows OSes are never going to hit the mainstream desktop users.  And well written apps shouldn't need to bring up a UAC prompt, but MS have to allow crap legacy apps to run.

Additionally, the number of *nix desktops I see being used with root as primary user is shocking (usually coupled with the 'its Linux/BSD/AIX/Solaris/etc, so I'm safe' comments).

A well built *nix (inc OSX), properly patched/AV'd/Malware protected, and properly used is likely to be reasonably secure.  Same for Windows.

Its when any of them are not properly used or protected....