Just got Windows 8, but . . .

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Just got Windows 8, but . . .

t'would be very interesting to get stats and input from a bunch of FFR players. hardware specs, OS, any software tweaks, flash version, browser vs standalone, quality of experience.

does a thread like that exist? if not, I think I'll start one within a week or two.

[dragon890x]

Re: Just got Windows 8, but . . .

haha, I believe you. I apologize if I wasted your time by asking you to provide a link; I shouldn't have assumed you were referring to a specific article. my bad.

I was the one who decided to waste my time, not you. There's no need to apologize. lol

can't hurt though, right?

Nope, it can't hurt if your concern for obtaining viruses are greater than your computer's performance.

again, if you're cool with carefully managing ports, then that's great. if you're willing to keep track of all of your files and constantly check for infections, that can work too. I believe you'd be in the vast minority of people in that regard.

I never do those two things. :3

I don't see much relevance in this analogy. security updates from microsoft are free. if you're talking about the cost of upgrading from XP to 7 or what have you, note that I never explicitly made such a suggestion. you have plenty of Linux distros to choose from.

I was waiting for you to ask something in regards to that statement. It's about trust and reliability. Patching holes in an OS leaves room for more holes to be made. Opening or closing a port only does one of two things, opens or closes a port. It doesn't open or close other ports.

I know that explanation might sound confusing, but think about it. When you close a port to fix a problem, you fix the problem. When you patch your system to fit the latest and greatest security model, you become one of the many millions of users who are running the same security. You put yourself on the target for those who develop viruses, aiming to hit a wider audience. You did nothing to fix a problem, you are entrusting Microsoft to fix it instead.

My point, putting complete trust into Windows Security Updates doesn't save you from anything. Your protection will be short lived, if it even provides you protection. It doesn't compare to taking manual control of your network's ports or machines. The majority of the problems out there can be stopped by simply adjusting a few settings and keeping a keen eye out for suspicious files and activity.

Even network administrators have to watch out for updates. Some updates change settings that could bring down a network, or even break a machine's partition (which has happened to me before I had much experience). This is why you should never update a live server's OS without testing the updates before hand. Updating has just as much risk as not updating.

I just want to spread the word about XP being a dangerous choice for most users.

I still think that this claim is wrong.

These quotes are killing me.

@Frank Munoz
Are you running 64-bit?

[Frank Munoz]

Re: Just got Windows 8, but . . .

hmm...

yes i am.
Forgot about that-

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Just got Windows 8, but . . .

These quotes are killing me.

haha, right? I wish vbulletin had a visual tool for quote dissection. lol.

Nope, [using AV software] can't hurt if your concern for obtaining viruses are greater than your computer's performance.

good point. I'm trying to focus on the average user here. I believe the average user has hardware which can very, very easily handle the user's computing tasks. I see one constantly running process as a small price to pay for what could be an incredible convenience.

Opening or closing a port only does one of two things, opens or closes a port. It doesn't open or close other ports.

very true. power users actually have a lot of control, regardless of their OS.

When you close a port to fix a problem, you fix the problem. When you patch your system to fit the latest and greatest security model, you become one of the many millions of users who are running the same security. You put yourself on the target for those who develop viruses, aiming to hit a wider audience. You did nothing to fix a problem, you are entrusting Microsoft to fix it instead.

I disagree with part of your reasoning here. yes, having the most recent updates from microsoft makes your system files and settings identical to millions of others out there, and malware developers will work to break these configurations. but if you lag behind in updating, or if you neglect updating at all, older malware which has already been propogated can infect your machine. an older system configuration could have fewer vulnerabilities than a newer one, but the old configuration's vulnerabilities have probably been exploited already.

My point, putting complete trust into Windows Security Updates doesn't save you from anything. Your protection will be short lived, if it even provides you protection. It doesn't compare to taking manual control of your network's ports or machines. The majority of the problems out there can be stopped by simply adjusting a few settings and keeping a keen eye out for suspicious files and activity.

I still think that Windows updates are a necessity for most people who run Microsoft operating systems. to assume that these updates make a system completely invincible would be incredibly foolish. however, completely distrusting or disregarding updates from your own software vendor might be equally silly.

Even network administrators have to watch out for updates. Some updates change settings that could bring down a network, or even break a machine's partition (which has happened to me before I had much experience). This is why you should never update a live server's OS without testing the updates before hand. Updating has just as much risk as not updating.

totally, totally agreed. this issue warrants a completely separate conversation.

I'm not trying to win any argument here. I just want to spread the word about XP being a dangerous choice for most users.

I still think that this claim is wrong.

in about 1.5 years, microsoft will stop releasing any security updates for windows XP. many systems connected to the internet will still run XP with those final system configurations. any vulnerabilities left in those configurations will exist forever (unless patched by a third party). malware developers will target these systems, because all of the systems will be vulnerable to the same type of attack. (I could see a pretty wicked DDoS scheme lined up as a result.)

even if you're a well-versed and vigilant user, keeping your system clean will be a hell of a lot of work. if you choose to go that route, I wish you luck.

[dragon890x]

Re: Just got Windows 8, but . . .

I wish you luck.

Thanks, I wish you the same.

Also, I believe that I understand where you're coming from. I think it's best to end our discussion on this note, what ever works for you is the best option.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: Just got Windows 8, but . . .

for sure. actually, after rereading my posts, I can see how I might sound like I'm blowing things out of proportion. in general, savvy home users don't really have that much to be afraid of.

I just like rambling about computer things. anyone wanna talk about stuff in the Bits and Bytes board? it seems lonely