crizazykid2

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
1,087
0
19,280
Will vista have a bunch of stupid bugs like XP did? It is supposed to be more secure and blah blah blah. But if the new windows has a bunch a flaws, it is gonna damage microsoft's already damaged rep. Who is gonna actually buy vista right-out? I sure wouldn't...seems kinda stupid with MS's attitude (make money now, fix products later). From what I have read vista really is not much better than XP in many respects!
 

sturm

Splendid
Is the question even needed to be asked?!!!
You're talking about Microshit here! Of course there will be bugs in it along with who knows how many security holes.
Has microshit ever put out a program that didnt have problems?


Have read some places that the system requirements for vista could be out of reach for alot of people and alot of businesses without them buying brand new computers. I am sure it will run on slower ones just not the way its supposed to be.
I will not upgrade to vista for at least a year after its release, if I ever do.
XP for me has been stable as hell. No reason to update/upgrade/downgrade.
 

riser

Illustrious
Vista will have it's problems.

Ask yourself this:
In 2000 and XP, how many problems did you find yourself? Probably none.

The people who find these errors actively go through and dig and dig until they find something.

In a recently college class a professor had a class full of students go through a linux kernel. They had very basic experience but were taught what to look for. The next class they had found 32 errors in the linux kernel.

It's created by humans and errors and bugs will happen. You're talking Millions of lines of code. They might find 100,000 errors/bugs. That's pretty good coding at any level.
 

JesterX

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2006
128
0
18,680
Why is there all this hate for MS?
Sure theres a few bugs, like OS X doesnt have any, but overall, its a great OS.

I don't know about you guys, but I've not had XP crash on me once in the 4 years I've used it.
And viruses are a thing of the past, just get Avast! Anti-Virus, its free, and its not bloated.
Network Security: turn on TCP/IP Filtering or use a Firewall.

And have any of you actually tried Vista (the beta anyways)?
 

JesterX

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2006
128
0
18,680
I have a copy of the beta, but I haven't dont much more than installing it to look at the new features (mainly the sleek look) and try the new IE.

You can just go download *cough* it and try it for yourself.
 

riser

Illustrious
anytime you have millions and up lines of code, you will have bugs. It's the nature of coding.

I'm not saying Vista will be bad though. It by far will be their best OS yet.

I am a fan of Microsoft and do truly enjoy their products.

On a side note, I don't care for the people who complain about how horrible M$ is yet they continue to use their product.

Last week or so Tomshardware ran a small article in which the developed of SSH (Secure Shell) said to go with Proprietary over Open Source.

Why?

Because Open Source you don't have the big company backing you. If something comes up, you have someone to fall back on or even sue. With open source, you're at the mercy of the open community. He said that 2/3rds of the patches released to fix a problem in Open Source contained more, often worse, problems than what it was fixing.

It's rare, not unheard of, that you see that with M$.
 

INeedCache

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2005
521
0
18,980
How many of these so-called "bugs" in Windows are really bugs? When you first load up Windows and begin to use it, how many things do you find that really don't work? Very few. Your so-called bugs are really issues dealing with people trying to hack, infest, and screw up the system. Any software written by man can be hacked by man. Everyone seems to blame Microsoft for Windows not being totally hack-proof and secure. Go find me some other software of any kind that cannot be hacked and screwed up. I'm really tired of hearing the garbage about how Linux and OS X are so secure. Let any other OS take Windows' place and see what happens. When you're on top, everyone is after you. If you think any other OS would withstand the onslaught better or respond with fixes any faster, I think you'd better wake up and start hoping for some modicum of reality to set into your life. Despite what you may think, I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, just sick and tired of hearing these same, worn out complaints over and over. Get over it. If you don't like Windows, fine, use something else. Better yet, write your own hack-proof OS code.
 
And just to add some fuel to the fire... ;)

Madrid, February 22, 2006 - A critical vulnerability has been reported in the Safari browser shipped with Mac OS X, which could allow an attacker to automatically run scripts when a user visited a malicious website.

The flaw affects how MAC OS X determines which program must run to open certain types of files. If a Unix shell script is renamed with a Safari extension, it is considered 'safe'. If the '#!' sequence is omitted and it is compressed in ZIP, Safari can be tricked into downloading the script, decompressing it and assuming that it 'safe', pass it to the Mac OS X Terminal application to run. This could allow an attacker to use a script to delete data or programs, damage the configuration or obtain personal user information.

Apple is working on an update that resolves this problem, known as a 'zero day exploit'. In the meantime, Safari users can disable the option "Open 'safe' files after downloading" in the General panel in the browser preferences. This option is disabled by default in new installations of Mac OS X 10.4.5, but enabled by default in old systems or in systems that have upgraded to Mac OS X 10.4.5.

Finally, we will look at a worm called OSX/Oomp.A. This malicious code is developed for the MacOS/X operating system, which replaces other programs in the copy with a copy of itself which includes the original program among its resources.

When it is run, this replacement file runs the malicious code and then tries to execute the original program. However, due to programming errors, the original program is not launched correctly. This worm spreads via instant messaging in a file called 'latestpics.tgz'.

More secure? Hardly. Just not as big a target.

Madrid, December 27 2005 - iDefense has announced a complete memory exhaustion vulnerability in versions 2.4 and 2.6 of the Linux kernel, which could allow denial of service attacks.

The flaw stems from a limitation in the design of the Linux kernel, and consists of a lack of resource checking during the buffering of data for transfer over a pair of sockets. An attacker could create a situation which, depending on the available system resources, can cause a 'kernel panic' due to memory resource exhaustion.

An attack can be launched by opening up a number of connected file descriptors or socket pairs and creating the largest possible kernel buffer for data transfer between the two sockets. By causing the process to enter a zombie state or closing the file descriptor while keeping a reference open, the data is kept in the kernel until the transfer can complete. If done repeatedly, system memory resources can be exhausted from the kernel.

To fully exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need local access to the affected system.

Now granted, this one requires local access to the computer to fully exploit... but it's still there.

Madrid, December 15, 2005 - Debian has released security updates that resolve several vulnerabilities in versions 2.4.27 and 2.6.8 of the Linux kernel.

The updates are critical, as an attacker could exploit, either locally or remotely, several security flaws to cause problems ranging from denial of services to execution of arbitrary code. For this reason, users of affected computers are advised to install the corresponding update and restart their computers for it to come into effect.

More information about the vulnerabilities corrected and the updates (where they are available and the commands for installing them) are available in the advisories published by Debian at the following
addresses:

- Advisory DSA-921-1: http://www.debian.org/security/2005/dsa-921

- Advisory DSA-922-1: http://www.debian.org/security/2005/dsa-922

To suggest that by installing Linux by default makes you totally secure is misleading. Simply installing Linux isn't any better than simply installing Windows. It must be configured properly. (I give props to Linux_0 for not being a Linux fanboi and actually taking the time to say these kinds of things).
 

TRENDING THREADS