Bob Dobbs wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:
Running Windows of any kind as the host puts your whole system at risk.

It indeed has that potential if improperly configured.

Opera v10.10 here on WinXP/SP2 home safely ensconced
within a registered copy of Sandboxie v3.40
and there isn't a site that poses any danger to me,
go ahead call my bluff, post a link g


I use Panda Cloud. I do not put anything crucial on a Windows machine.

My files are stored on external drives. My current OS is Puppy 4.20, I
use that for my main computer and for my ham computer. I have a Netbook
with XP and use Windows at work. It is so lame and square. Microsoft
is apparently run by nerds.

Bob Dobbs wrote:


It seems to be considered fashionable to bash Microsoft products, exclaiming
their weaknesses and danger, yet whenever I list the Microsoft OS I use and
extend a challenge to demonstrate those vulnerabilities, it routinely goes
unanswered. Sorta discredits the validity of the basher's mantra.


At what price of efficiency and speed? People mock Microsoft because
their **** is klunky. The company was built by acquisition of
innovators, as opposed to innovating in-house. At their core they are
insular and paranoid. Apple is only slightly better. I find the
open-source world to be the most people-friendly of all. Yes, you need
a brain to play in Linux land; conversely you get way more control over
your complete IT environment.

Software, except for very specific business applications, should be
free. People who build CPUs should give you the means to employ that CPU.

Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote:
At what price of efficiency and speed?

snipped the rest of the diversion

Efficiency and speed weren't part of the original caveat.


They are always a consideration when discussing IT systems.

Toxic wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:58:09 -0800, Bob Dobbs wrote:

dave wrote:
At what price of efficiency and speed?
snipped the rest of the diversion

Efficiency and speed weren't part of the original caveat.

You know Dobbs, the attempt to dodge your challenge to his concerns about
MS security reminds of an old adage: When strolling in the woods and you
come across a quail dragging a wing, you know two things - there's
nothing wrong with the wing and you're getting too close to the nest.
IOW: maybe he's had difficulty trying to secure a doze box in the past
and blames it all on the OS.
BTW: I agree that with a bit of gumption you can indeed secure windows.

I've never had a problem with security on Windows boxes. That's not the
point. Just the fact that Windows stayed stuck on the single desktop
for so long should tell you something.

The Windows world is like a red light district, heavy on panhandlers.

Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote:
Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote:
At what price of efficiency and speed?
snipped the rest of the diversion

Efficiency and speed weren't part of the original caveat.

They are always a consideration when discussing IT systems.

As is cost of ISP service, manual dexterity and a whole bunch of other things,
if you want to waltz away from your erroneous stance about windows security.


Please tell me what my erroneous stance was, so I can walk away gracefully.

In the meantime, if Windows is easily secured, without a performance
penalty, these guys are just making busywork?

http://www.virusbtn.com/index