Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 103142	2009-09-13 20:24:00	Unfixable - Quick - Change your O/S	pctek (84)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
809894	2009-09-14 02:17:00	Yes, but you're not exactly clueless about firewalls PCT ;) It's the same reason that Vista's UAC doesn't work; most people just want a PC that's easy and simple to use, so they have a very low tolerance for (annoying) pop-ups . Not to mention that most people wouldn't have a clue about what processes to allow/disallow anyway . I've said before on here that, for the majority of standard users, client-based software firewalls are largely a waste of time and I still stand by that . Fire away . . . . :D Yeah, I agree with that . . . . .	SolMiester (139)
809895	2009-09-14 02:27:00	One thing I find ironic about this, is that the banks are the ones telling us that if our computers are not up to date with updates, we're the ones that will lose out on any claims and such. www.stuff.co.nz This annoys me: Sixteen of New Zealand's top 100 computer users, including some banks and government agencies, may be unable to fully protect some of their computers from hackers after Microsoft said it would not patch a fault in the Windows 2000 operating system. Microsoft said it could not patch Windows 2000 without rewriting a significant portion of the operating system. Hackers should not be able to exploit the vulnerability via internet-based threats if computers were sitting behind a firewall, which would be standard practice. But companies should consider speeding up upgrades to other operating systems, if they were not already under way, he says. The operating system was not marketed to consumers. Note the important bit: Hackers should not be able to exploit the vulnerability via internet-based threats if computers were sitting behind a firewall, which would be standard practice. And a business probably should upgrade, but there are loads of home users using it.	bob_doe_nz (92)
809896	2009-09-14 03:53:00	Oh come on, that's like saying you don't need a firewall if you are running XP/Vista/W7. I wonder why they are included in the OS... This is just a Microsoft play to get people to move to Win 7.	Cato (6936)
809897	2009-09-14 04:11:00	Oh come on, that's like saying you don't need a firewall if you are running XP/Vista/W7. I wonder why they are included in the OS... This is just a Microsoft play to get people to move to Win 7. Rubbish. Win2K is nearly 10 years old - more than past time to upgrade. Trouble is banks are very conservative by nature, as well as being huge enterprises with lots of differently specced gear of various ages. Very difficult and expensive (time and money) to try to stay current - especially if you haven't got a replacement/upgrade plan in place that has kept up with all the technology changes in the last ten years. And generally, hardware upgrades (the most expensive part of an upgrade) don't add a hell of a lot to a company's bottom line (unless you're still running P1's!!).	johcar (6283)
809898	2009-09-14 04:17:00	That is only because of rust and bit-rot. Windows is super tough, reliable, and Win 2000 is the most secure Windows yet. It says so here, right on the box. Would Mr Gates have been tossing porkies? Of course not. Tui time.	R2x1 (4628)
809899	2009-09-14 04:23:00	Exactly, there is no need for an immediate upgrade even from 2k . If you look it as a whole and how they are using it XP/Vista did not offer anything for a significant advantages from them to upgrade . Most of the software they use was written for Win2k, and if they change it will cost them a lot . Other than the fact they should have moved from 2k when the support-cycle ended . But, why change what works for you?	Cato (6936)
809900	2009-09-14 09:42:00	That whole "It takes 21 hours to upgrade" thing is pure BS. There is no way that result mirrors real life upgrades. Anyone with that much data would know to put it onto a separate drive and do a clean install. Engadget went all "Pro-Mac" when they saw it as usual. Idiots..	beeswax34 (63)
809901	2009-09-14 20:34:00	Rubbish. Win2K is nearly 10 years old - more than past time to upgrade. Why? Just because it's 9 years old? Do you toss your car every time a new model comes out? If it does what you need it to do, you can still get 3rd party protection and still get the software and drivers you need then you don't need to upgrade just because Mr Gates wants more money. Eventually, there is no protection available, no software and no drivers, and then you haven't got a lot of choice. Or if you need the new O/S for whatever hardware or business reasons, fine. I have customers who have just now changed from Win98/ME. I can see them keeping XP for a long long time - until the same situation occurs. So what.	pctek (84)
809902	2009-09-14 21:18:00	No, I don't chuck my car every time there's a new model, but that's not a very valid comparison - the life-cycle of (most) cars is measured in decades - barring accidents - and the capital outlay is much greater for a new car . Software changes much quicker than cars and even the IRD accept that the value of software is written-off after 5 - 7 years . However where your analogy does have commonality with software/OS is the 'parts' (drivers etc) . Parts for old cars get harder to obtain as the years pass - software developers, in general, don't like developing for older systems (unless they're paid for it) or they have a personal reason for doing so . Mostly, a developer prefers to work on the latest and greatest (perception check here!) because that's what they enjoy (and why they're a developer) . The problem I see with older OS's, including Win98 and ME and Win2K, is that they are probably still fine for doing things (if your computer is still running well after all those years) so long as those computers are not connected to the Interweb . That's where the problems come in, because idiots with too much time on their hands have spent years pulling the software to bits to find the weaknesses (and exploit them) . It is not economic for any manufacturer to support their product forever . Otherwise why would they bother developing new stuff . Mr Henry Ford: "Here's the Model T - you can have it in any colour you like, so long as it's black . I will make parts and service this car forever - it's all the car you will ever need . No-one ever needs to change their car, and there is no need for any other manufacturer to make any other car . " Yeah right!	johcar (6283)
809903	2009-09-14 22:29:00	If the replacement for your Model T needed an engine 7 times the size, would not fit your garage, driveway or street, consumed 8 times the fuel, needed a complete re-training of the driver, gave no trade-in whatsoever for the old car, but DID allow you to keep flowers arrayed across the dashboard, I suspect we would still be changing gears with our feet. ;)	R2x1 (4628)
1 2