Order Now!
Windows 7 for XP ProfessionalsUpdating Support Skills from XP to Windows 7by Bink.nu's Raymond Comvalius
There are 132 guest(s) online.
There are 0 member(s) online.
uhhh, what would be the point if you don't install any apps and just the kernel/services? And even then, you're going to have to update and patch holes in some of those services or libs or even the kernel which for linux is updated often anyways.
If you take out all the apps from Windows also it's very secure also. If you notice more and more attacks are becoming app specific and less OS specific. While most of these still attack windows systems, the point is that they're attacking specific programs installed on the systems and less the OS itself. Look at many of the programs like Symantecs pathetic AV which has had it's nasty share of security problems as a good example.
And also, OSX installs with way more apps then Windows, from browsers to whatever else starts with an i apple can think of. Now if you can totally uninstall all of those or not, I don't know. But the fact is, you aren't, you want those apps and that's why they are installed.
Zac B:
you think your Vista without UAC is secured how my with UAC ... [:D][:D][:D]dont be so sure :)
"Vista is currently secure, mainly because it continually insists on asking questions that most fail to understand."
I've been running Vista since beta 2. I hear a lot about UAC asking a million questions and interrupting the user.
My experience has been vastly different than what these people claim.
For me I only see the UAC message box when I run an install which is not very often. When I hit regedit. Or on the odd activex control. So pretty much only when I'm messing with core components of the OS.
I pretty much never see UAC message when I'm browsing the web (IE7), playing games, Watching videos.
If you're the average user I don't think you'll see many UAC messages.
Channel9 has a very good video about what UAC is from the developers that made it. I recommend people that want to know more look it up.
I've very happy witht he changes MS did in Vista.
Most of the UAC = Bad stuff is FUD.
GP,
While I agree completely with you about UAC will help devs write better apps, if the Devs (and then the QA folks) follow Zac's lead and disable UAC, then they will miss their poorly written apps that constantly require UAC prompts and the first folks to notice it will be their customers (who will then blame Microsoft).
I tend to have the same experience as alrethe, I've been running with UAC enabled since Beta 2 and it doesn't hinder me either. I do have an elevated command prompt open for things like "ipconfig /release" "ipconfig /renew" "ipconfig /flushdns" & compmgmt.msc, but most of what I do is via normal methods and I don't typically see UAC either.
The computer at home where I see UAC the most is the one where I also most want to keep it running...The computer my son uses. Unfortunately, he is most likely to be playing one of 2 games that my wife got at the store and both of them insist on trying to launch by running their 'setup.exe' as the first step of launching the app, so we ALWAYS get UAC prompts on those games. [:@] But he's 2.5 years old and I'm not about to let him run on the computer w/o UAC enabled. I'd LOVE to have a word with the devs behind those games. [6]
This is the case right now, since you can turn it off. But look at what they did with DEP, at first it was off or on, and many OEMs turned it off. But now slowlly MS got OEMs to leave it on, and many users have finally understood that having DEP on helps secure their system more. So now users are forcing any apps that aren't DEP friendly to become so.
The same thing will happen with UAC, due to the problem with keeping compatibility going, MS can't force changes right from the start, they have to work them in slowlly as with DEP and now with UAC, by giving people the option to turn them off totally and so on. But later on when the majority of apps are UAC compatible this won't be a problem, and then MS can move on to the next change that needs to get done.
When you aren't held back by compatibility you are free to make drastic changes, but as we've seen, even small ones that break a few apps on Windows is met with a large backlash.
I think this is why the next major version of Windows will also be 64bit only, making this move forces apps to be redone anyways, and thus they can be UAC compatible and more safe, maybe even less bloated one would hope.