Downgrading from Vista to XP

[GenMarshall]

For an older computer, stick with XP. With a newer computer stick with Vista.

 

[Crbarber22695]

Yeah, thanks for the help guys, I got XP back on my system without any problems and it only took about an hour! The only down sides are I have to download and install so many updates!

 

[carmen510]

security is much improved

I laugh at your attempt to make Windows security look adequate.

 

[Zelig]

I laugh at your attempt to make Windows security look adequate.

I imagine that if the average Windows user was as technically capable as the average Linux user, the statistical difference in security exploits between them would be very small.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Someone in IT once told me that simply from having IE on your system, you're at risk.

 

[Aramazd]

Someone in IT once told me that simply from having IE on your system, you're at risk.

I wouldn't think so. If he had an example I would be interested.

I laugh at your attempt to make Windows security look adequate.

It is adequate.

 

[taper]

I imagine that if the average Windows user was as technically capable as the average Linux user, the statistical difference in security exploits between them would be very small.

Change the word user to developer(maybe manager), and I completely agree with you. I'll admit that market share is part of it too, but at its core, Windows security is a joke compared with most Unix derivatives. Most of that is a fundamental difference in access and permissions, which is completely up to the developers, not the users.

Someone in IT once told me that simply from having IE on your system, you're at risk.

This and this are the first two google results I got. Old articles, but initial XP installation hasn't really changed since then, not sure if those tests started with SP1 or SP2. Infection in 12-20 minutes doesn't even get you through all the crapware screens running the first time you boot, much less downloading the hundreds of MB of security updates you need to be reasonably secure.

 

[Aramazd]

Change the word user to developer(maybe manager), and I completely agree with you. I'll admit that market share is part of it too, but at its core, Windows security is a joke compared with most Unix derivatives. Most of that is a fundamental difference in access and permissions, which is completely up to the developers, not the users.

I don't understand what you mean by the bold part.

This and this are the first two google results I got. Old articles, but initial XP installation hasn't really changed since then, not sure if those tests started with SP1 or SP2. Infection in 12-20 minutes doesn't even get you through all the crapware screens running the first time you boot, much less downloading the hundreds of MB of security updates you need to be reasonably secure.

IIRC, that was fixed with SP2. I don't really think its fair to pull out an article of an issue that has already been fixed and use that as an example of how Windows is insecure now. I don't think there is any debate that Pre-SP2 Windows security was a joke.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I wish Microsoft would just make a downloadable ISO images of critical security updates and offer for download that you can pop in and install all at once. I think there's something like this already, but it's for the professionals, not end-users.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't understand what you mean by the bold part.

I think what it meant that the developers of *NIX systems set up the OS to be more restrictive for security (e.g. file permissions), and you had to take deliberate sets to lower the restrictions. While with Windows, it's more up to the user.

 

[Aramazd]

I wish Microsoft would just make a downloadable ISO images of critical security updates and offer for download that you can pop in and install all at once. I think there's something like this already, but it's for the professionals, not end-users.

You can download Service Packs, which IIRC contain all of the prior security updates.

 

[taper]

I don't understand what you mean by the bold part.

Windows defaults to running as Administrator for general use, and a large percentage of programs require you to be an Administrator to run them. This is the single biggest security problem in Windows, which UAC is a half-hearted attempt to fix. Many users don't even set a password.

Linux is set up with each user having their own limited(the degree of limitation is highly variable, and customizable) passworded account, and use sudo whenever administrative actions are needed. Sudo is an excellent method of control, and it's implementation in a modern distro like Ubuntu is far more user-friendly than UAC.

IIRC, that was fixed with SP2. I don't really think its fair to pull out an article of an issue that has already been fixed and use that as an example of how Windows is insecure now. I don't think there is any debate that Pre-SP2 Windows security was a joke.

How many pre-SP2 install discs are still out there being used? Just because a fix is available doesn't mean it'll get installed before infection. I agree that SP2 is a good improvement, but it didn't fix all the problems. There are 1,174 fixes in SP3 after all.

 

[taper]

I wish Microsoft would just make a downloadable ISO images of critical security updates and offer for download that you can pop in and install all at once. I think there's something like this already, but it's for the professionals, not end-users.

I don't know how they handle it now, but when XP SP2(which was cumulative) came out you could go to their site and request a cd with it mailed to you completely free, no fee of any kind. That's they way it should be done in the pre-broadband era, an iso on their site would be perfectly acceptable now, but I haven't checked. For the more tech savvy, you can slipstream just about anything into your install. End users can do this, but it's not for the average person.

 

[Aramazd]

Windows defaults to running as Administrator for general use, and a large percentage of programs require you to be an Administrator to run them. This is the single biggest security problem in Windows, which UAC is a half-hearted attempt to fix. Many users don't even set a password.

I suppose, but in Vista, even if you run as an admin you have to give permission for programs to run as an admin. While it would be better if everyone was a standard user, I don't see that as necessary.

Linux is set up with each user having their own limited(the degree of limitation is highly variable, and customizable) passworded account, and use sudo whenever administrative actions are needed. Sudo is an excellent method of control, and it's implementation in a modern distro like Ubuntu is far more user-friendly than UAC.

I thought sudo was similar to UAC?

How many pre-SP2 install discs are still out there being used? Just because a fix is available doesn't mean it'll get installed before infection. I agree that SP2 is a good improvement, but it didn't fix all the problems. There are 1,174 fixes in SP3 after all.

That's why slipstreaming exists. If you leave yourself vulnerable when you don't need to is that MSs fault?

 

[Quintillus]

I thought sudo was similar to UAC?

It depends on the implementation. If you're running everything in a GUI, Linux's permission contol system is a lot like UAC, except it doesn't pop up quite as often as it does in Vista. In the command line, it basically means you have to type "sudo" before certain things to get it to run. So you'd type something like "sudo setup.exe" instead of just setup.exe (and it wouldn't be an .exe). If you know it's coming, the four letters to type aren't bad at all. If you don't, and think the program isn't working for some other reason, it can waste a lot more time than UAC.

How it's actually implemented relative to UAC, I don't know. It definitely doesn't require authorization as often, and doesn't ask you to confirm something you obviously just confirmed as often. It still does that sometimes, though.

I kind of have to agree with Zelig that if the average Windows user were as technically capable as the average Linux user, the difference in exploits would be fairly small. Sure, Linux would have fewer due to its generally more robust security system, and would so long as it had smaller market share. But the vast majority of security problems are due to the user doing things they shouldn't, be it downloading files from a questionable source, going to parts of the Internet that are swarming with viruses, not setting any passwords on their wireless Internet, or any number of other things. If you know what you're doing on the Internet, it's not difficult to avoid almost every bug. But the average computer user is either too trusting, or too willing to go to risky corners of the Internet. And the average computer user doesn't use Linux.

 

[Maniacal]

I like how some of the first few replies did not read the OP's system specs at all, Vista wouldn't run well on that computer and his graphics card is really old, he would require an entirely new computer pretty much. XP should run better on it and I don't think he needs vista.

EDIT: How would not setting a password on wireless internet get you a virus?

EDIT2: My mother just reused her Dell XP pre-installed disc to instlal windows on her 'new' computer, so that's one disc that's still in use! I have two XP discs myself, one regular XP and one Dell, and a Win98 somewhere.

As for sudo, this is partly because I'm lazy and impatient but also because most people are not tech savy or will not understand, if I/we wanted to install a program and set it up, why can't we just do that since it's obviously a program we want and trust (if we knew something was wrong with it, we wouldn't install), so why force us to have to install things by having admin accounts or UAC/SUDO?

 

[Crbarber22695]

We should just all agree that Macs are probably the best computers on the market, if only they weren't so expensive. (although Mac mini's can be really cheap starting at $599, pretty cheap for a Mac)

 

[Zelig]

We should just all agree that Macs are probably the best computers on the market, if only they weren't so expensive. (although Mac mini's can be really cheap starting at $599, pretty cheap for a Mac)

Except they aren't, even if you ignore the cost.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I've heard in a few places that Windows runs very smoothly on a Mac. But they were forums.

 

[Zelig]

Windows runs very smoothly on a PC as well.