Which Windows?

Neilc28 said:
And how do you brand windows as expensive? Just out of curiosity, and compared to what?
Click to expand...

Well I was thinking more like Ultimate for £221.59 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-W..._12?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1388484137&sr=1-12

versus Snow Leopard at £14 http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard

or even a free Maverick http://www.apple.com/uk/osx/?cid=wwa-uk-kwg-mac-com

The cheapest Win 7 I found was £66 https://www.google.co.uk/shopping/product/16140642773103530924?q=windows operating system price uk&hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&biw=1920&bih=934&bvm=pv.xjs.s.en_US.EeLgqkzqnSg.O&tch=1&ech=1&psi=rZXCUqGyMsyjhgfLx4HYAw.1388484864353.3&ei=B5nCUrPFCpCrhAeDrYDoDA&ved=0CMwBEKYrMAQ

Then, of course, there's Linux but agree it can be labour intensive.
 
Last edited:
Ok, First of all Maverick's was free in the same way that 8.1 was free, in fact Microsoft announced it first as a free upgrade so Apple didn't exactly revolutionize software pricing when they announced it was free, contrary to many news articles (Damn you CNET!!)

The initial OSX price is built-in to the cost of the Mac device, which as we all know is pretty damn high, you are then limited to running it only on that machine, and don't forget that Windows has to run on a variety of hardware, no just a tiny selection that Microsoft sells, as per Apples business-case. Subsequent prices are then only upgrade, not full or OEM as these SKU's don't exist in Apple

Although they may appear similar, their business model is entirely different and can't really be compared.

As for Linux, well you have a point that its free, but as you so rightly said, it's "Labour Intensive" and it doesn't really have mainstream application support, so I couldn't recommend it :)

And 8.1 for 85 seems a good deal! :p
 
Last edited:
mid_gen said:
Some irresponsible advice being given, especially on a photography site where a compromised PC can cost valued memories.

ATMs, web servers etc are static machines running single, secure, maintained applications either on strictly locked down private networks or at least behind layers of security, and maintained by experienced IT professionals. Windows NT/XP embedded support extends far beyond desktop versions and the companies running them pay microsoft to provide continued support and critical exploit fixes.

Home users should never use an unsupported OS. Period.[/quote]
Click to expand...


I ran XP64 for years without updates (after a lot of bother with a big update) and never had much in the way of problems at all.

I knew loads of folk running copied XP who never updated them, they never fell over, blew up or got infected every second minute.

I hope you agree no updates is equivalent of unsupported?

Even now I don't do automatic updates on Win7, just do some pick and choose every few months (like IE11 a month or so ago).

My experiences over the decades are, as long as you are sensible and have good AV and firewalls, that PC's will rumble along quite happily without the myriad of security patches et al.

Even though MS say they are a must to avoid the billions of folk who are out to get your PC :rolleyes:
 
you do realize the vast majority of infections aren't just across a firewall, they're through browser exploits, buffer overflows etc? I.e. user activity based? I guarantee hackers are saving up their zero day exploits for the day xp goes EOL to make sure there's no chance of MS releasing a fix. It'll be like fish in a barrel as the least clueful users get hit. YMMV...
 
To everyone who says do X it will be fine, have you had that friend phone you up asking why their PC is infected as they don't do the same things you do.

With PCs it really is a case of do as I say and not as I do, you make sure people you help are protected as much as possible even if you don't protect your own PC. Never put yourself in a position where people lose work, photos and lots of time recovering a PC due to following your advice but using the computer differently and so being infected. Just because you know to ignore the phone call from Microsoft, understand you haven't won the Nigerian lottery, a mystery parcel from ups doesn't exist and your banking details do not need to be checked. It doesn't mean everyone understands this and isn't tricked.

What works for someone who uses and understands computer will not work for someone who doesn't.
 
Mikesphotaes said:
I ran XP64 for years without updates (after a lot of bother with a big update) and never had much in the way of problems at all.

I knew loads of folk running copied XP who never updated them, they never fell over, blew up or got infected every second minute.

I hope you agree no updates is equivalent of unsupported?

Even now I don't do automatic updates on Win7, just do some pick and choose every few months (like IE11 a month or so ago).

My experiences over the decades are, as long as you are sensible and have good AV and firewalls, that PC's will rumble along quite happily without the myriad of security patches et al.

Even though MS say they are a must to avoid the billions of folk who are out to get your PC :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh you knew someone that ran a non updated PC and didn't get infected....that must mean that kind of stupidity is OK then. I don't know why these companies spend millions on making sure their systems are up to date. Viruses aren't real they are just a bogeyman to make people buy software they don't.

For god's sake don't anyone listen to this rubbish.
 
mid_gen said:
Oh you knew someone that ran a non updated PC and didn't get infected....that must mean that kind of stupidity is OK then. I don't know why these companies spend millions on making sure their systems are up to date. Viruses aren't real they are just a bogeyman to make people buy software they don't.

For god's sake don't anyone listen to this rubbish.
Click to expand...

If everyone listens the same way as you read, you won't need to worry:)

Happy New Year.
 
Poor attempt at the last refuge of the out of their depth internet warrior, straw man fail.

To use a well known saying...to run a non-updated PC safely requires you to be lucky every time turn the machine on. To trash your machine and files only needs the virus/malware writer to get lucky once.
 
Last edited:
I've slept my way round Asia without protection and not got AIDS, therefore....etc ;)

Been on internet long enough to not get into flame unecessarily...but not when bad advice is being given on a subject I know well. Had to have 'the talk' with more than one person to explain that all their documents and pictures are gone, permanently, before...it's not just ego points at stake.

Most people have enough trouble not infecting their PC with a fully up to date system and AV, let alone an unpatched system with an ever increasing list of known 0-day exploits.
 
mid_gen said:
I've slept my way round Asia without protection and not got AIDS, therefore....etc ;)

Been on internet long enough to not get into flame unecessarily...but not when bad advice is being given on a subject I know well. Had to have 'the talk' with more than one person to explain that all their documents and pictures are gone, permanently, before...it's not just ego points at stake.

Most people have enough trouble not infecting their PC with a fully up to date system and AV, let alone an unpatched system with an ever increasing list of known 0-day exploits.
Click to expand...
indeed. bad advise when it comes to computers can be very irresponsible.
 
landwomble said:
you do realize the vast majority of infections aren't just across a firewall, they're through browser exploits, buffer overflows etc? I.e. user activity based?
Click to expand...
I realise this. I also realise that one way for infected software to get onto a Windows machine is via removable media, because Windows XP had a default setting of enabling autorun on insertion of a CD or USB memory device. Because that could never be exploited. That doesn't require a buffer overrun exploit, it's just really bad operating system design.

Unfortunately Microsoft do themselves no favours when it comes to security or making users want to allow Windows Update to work. One of my pet annoyances is the way that Windows update will reboot an unattended PC to complete an update install if no-one is around to tell it not to. The PC might well be unattended because it's been left on to perform a lengthy process overnight, which an unwanted 3am reboot will defeat, leaving the user with the machine sat at the login prompt and the job unfinished. Or that incident a few years (maybe 7 or 8 ) back where MS decided an update was so important that it would be installed and users' computers rebooted immediately without warning. I had four Windows PCs at home at the time running software that was communicating between them and in the space of five minutes they had all rebooted without explanation which broke all the work I was trying to do. The only thing that kept running was the linux box monitoring the Windows boxes, which announced that they had all fallen over :banghead:. Or KB2887069 last month that caused no end of problems and in the end I had to tell half the computers in the office to skip it because it just put them into an endless reboot loop.

Disclaimer - I'm a programmer developing (mainly) Windows applications in assembly language (and sometimes 'C'), not an IT person.
 
An uneducated person will still get infected whether they run xp, win 7, win8... Resorting to insults because it doesnt fit with your arguement is plainly ignorant. Trotting out the company line is also ignorant.
 
mejinks said:
An uneducated person will still get infected whether they run xp, win 7, win8... Resorting to insults because it doesnt fit with your arguement is plainly ignorant. Trotting out the company line is also ignorant.
Click to expand...
whos being insulting?

to be honest, if anyone is being rude or ignorant in this thread its you with that little rant :)
 
Recently moved on to 7
Love it.
 
mejinks said:
An uneducated person will still get infected whether they run xp, win 7, win8... Resorting to insults because it doesnt fit with your arguement is plainly ignorant. Trotting out the company line is also ignorant.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what value this post has. A patched, up to date OS is by it's very definition patched against known exploits. An unpatched one is not. It's always possible to nawse your own computer up, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take sensible precautions, the primary one of which is run a supported OS and patch it.
We (MS) don't burn countless hours and dollars creating the patches, testing them etc for no reason.
You can choose to run your own systems how you see fit but it is plain wrong to advocate this to other people as good practice - it's their risk to manage, not yours.

I'd agree that insults aren't helpful, however!

Not speaking on behalf of my employer, opinions my own, etc etc.
 
Just to go back to a previous point, you can turn off the automatic restart option for windows update. It is the first thing you do when you get a PC you want to leave on 24/7.
 
Dale_tem said:
Just to go back to a previous point, you can turn off the automatic restart option for windows update. It is the first thing you do when you get a PC you want to leave on 24/7.
Click to expand...
I know. When the computer is usually switched off on leaving the office and updates consequently installed then, so overnight runs are very, very rare, this can get forgotten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top