No BS Podcast #192: We-Tear-Through-Your-Questions Edition!

8

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

joshnatl

Can you please bring Nathan back? The show used to be like hanging out with friends now its like the NPR tech hour or something.There are a ton of podcasts like what this is becoming but the old No BS was unique.Oh well,at least that one guy stopped talking about cats.

avatar

dc10ten

the thing i have to say with metro and Win8 is that the "tiles" seem to resemble the xbox360 interface. A lot of folks didn't like the ribbon interface with office... just like old people dont like the aisles changing in the grocery store.

avatar

gordonung

Bullwinkle, you can't just ignore the report even though it's from MS. Yes, it's in their best interest to push it upgrading but unless you think their numbers are completely fabricated you can't argue with the raw data. Instead, here's the question: Does XP experience more infections than 7 because it's less secure or because it's still one of the top operating systems in use around the globe? It's also one of the most heavily pirated in use overseas which can affect the infection rates.

Or is it because it's an OS form 2001? What piece of hardware are you still using from 2001? I don't think I have anything that old anywhere in any running systems. Hell, we were all running CRTs on VGA, floppy drives and some people still had Zip drives going.

If you want just a few bullet items:Here's a couple of features that come to mind that make it "enhanced" over XP:

 

* Windows 7's limited accounts actually work with games.

* BitLocker lets you encrypt the whole drive with nary a performance hit (provided you have a TPM) and it works pretty damned well. I ran whole disk encryption on an old C2D ThinkPad for sometime and never noticed a performance and it made me feel a whole lot safer.

*Windows 7 (as does Vista but it improved in Win7) features Address Space Layout Randomization. There have been specifica attacks designed for this, but it is a security enhancement that indeed does make it more secure than XP.

 

*Data Execution Protection now works with IE and more parts of the OS than Vista and XP.

 

And yes, Win7 has a crap load of holes and every day, more will be discovered. So does Win8 and OSX and basically every single piece of software ever written. People are constantly exploiting zero-day atack vectors on even very, very old software that is open source or using new and unique attacks no one ever thought of before but additional security features means it's going to be safer for more people. 

 

The lesson here is for EVERYONE to constantly patch and be ever vigilent. Don't think running one security product is going to make you immune forever. I think the phrase I've seen is: "Security isn't a product, it's a process."

 

Finally, I just can't see a reason to limit yourself with a 32-bit OS, DX9-only (without extensive work to get DX10+ to work), without TRIM, and that cannot boot to 2.1+TB drives. There's just no reason to do it anymore. If you like Drive Shield or DeepFreeze or that style of protection, why not run them on a modern OS with modern hardware?

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Thanks for responding

I have no hardware from 2001 either

I also have no reason for a 64 bit system with DX 10

Any 32 bit system is good enough for internet use, regardless of whether it is Linux, Windows 8 or XP

Yes, I do have a trial copy of Win 8 installed on one Internet connected machine for testing (What a shocker)

I simply do not agree with 7 & 8's need to let "ANY" software you currently have send data to the Internet when left in it's default installation state, as most non-savvy users leave it in

Yes, Windows 7 & 8 can be locked down pretty well without using Microsofts STEADY STATE which has been discontinued but not in an easy or simple manner for newbies who do not understand the security concerns involved or the need for such a product

I also do not agree with Microsoft's need to track pretty much everything you install on the new versions of Windows, or simple methods for non-savvy users to disable Microsofts built in anti-virus when they install an alternate brand of anti-virus

Things like that

These things "may" make sense to some power users, but are jibberish to the majority of users who can be directly affected by such topics without their knowledge

Once again, Thanks for finally responding

It only took 3 years to get a response at this site

I'm impressed

Some sites never respond

To be fair, others at the Magazine may have responded in the past but Gordon is a fixture at Maximum PC, these other guys are just temp workers aren't they?

Take care
Klausse

The DIE HARD XP User

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

When you answered the guy with the XP - SSD question I wondered how Windows 7 is more secure than XP?

I'm using Driveshield right now so my XP Boot drive is "Basically" Read Only

I have only had 1 virus in the past 5 years on XP (Before Driveshield)

So how is 7 more secure?

Flame and Stuxnet run fine on Windows 7 & 8 don't they?

Just askin

Not a conspiracy or nuthin

and why won't XP install on new hardware ?

Just saying

or Linux?

Do I really need to send these questions to your email so nobody ever hears them?

Why don't you just answer them?

It's not a conspiracy is it?

avatar

HiGHRoLLeR038

http://t.qkme.me/3qc53x.jpg

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

See Kids, That is how you know when you are asking the right questions

You get the wrong answer every time

avatar

I Jedi

>.>
<.<

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.